Talk:Texan schooner Independence

GA Review

Hi, nice article which only needs a handful of simple tweaks to become a GA.

• The lead must be reorganised. Move the 4th paragraph in between the 1st and 2nd sentances of the 1st paragraph and then merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs together, leaving two neat paragraphs at the top.
• Instead of "skirmishing without result with the Mexican brigs Urrea and Bravo", try "skirmishing inconclusively with . . ."
• Link to the correct Santa Anna (Antonio López de Santa Anna).
• Make sure all references come after punctuation without a space.
• Link to the Treaty of Velasco and remove the adjective "strongman" unless it has a special significance I am unwaware of (in which case explain it in the article).
• Rumors of an imminent invasion of Texas.
• Remove comma in: "while there, Commodore Hawkins"
• In the battle and surrender section, introduce the paragraph i.e. "On her next cruise, Independence had had seven days smooth sailing when. . . "
• Change "What the populace" to "The populace" and remove the "was" which follows it.
• Remove the comma after captain and try to explain more clearly how Independence was raked: Were the Mexicans faster? Was she badly handled? was it a wind problem?
• As there is no artice for Mexican schooner La Independencia can you briefly shed some light on the schooner's future career? When did she retire, was she sunk etc.

In all, a good article with the clear potential to reach GA status. Nice work.--Jackyd101 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent and helpful review. I made all the requested changes, except the final one: I cannot find any further references to the career of this ship in the Mexican Navy. I hope this acceptable and appreciate your review. Argos'Dad 00:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, don't worry too much about the Mexican career, I guess that's something for the future. Well done, a fine GA--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing of Hawkins article at tshaonline.org

While Moonriddengirl has addressed some of the close paraphrasing in this article (and a great deal of that and worse in the Texan schooner Invincible article), there are still clear significant instances of it remaining when you compare the article to the Texas State Historical Association's online article for Charles Edward Hawkins (currently source 1 in the article). Hence, I have placed a close paraphrasing template on the article, and it should remain until the close paraphrasing has been eliminated. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Texan schooner Independence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Copyright violations that have stood for three years now. Was going to try and fix them, but realised the lead contains lots of information not found within the articles body. There may be more, but the tag alone is enough to delist it. If that is fixed and the lead sorted I will review the article closer. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: If you want to comment. AIRcorn (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Per the Paraphrasing link, I think the tag may be incorrect, as the link only points out several instances (22 total, but many are phrases involving referencing rather than plain text) where phrases are similar, in most cases unavoidable. Such as "the united states revenue cutter ingham", "texas governor henry smith", "hawkins died of smallpox", etc. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I will ask Moonriddengirl and BlueMoonset to comment as they found and tagged it first up. It is possible that it has been fixed. That may explain why the lead contains unique information (it being removed from the body). AIRcorn (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn, Iazyges, the tag was certainly correct when I placed it over three years ago, and was still correct when this reassessment was opened: when I was pinged on March 26, the infringing material was still there, which is why I didn't comment at the time; there was no reason to do so when delisting was clearly appropriate. Looking at the article history, I see that a number of edits made after Aircorn's ping on March 26 have edit summaries indicating that infringing text was being removed, so it's likely based on the Iazyges comment that it is improved in that regard. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Earwig's copyvio tool shows only 16% similarity now (which is quite low, and only due to unavoidable paralels with the source), so I've removed the tag. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Okay I am happy with the copyright aspect. However from looking closely at the sources [1][2] it seems all the detail presented in the article does not actually come from them. For example, there is a very detailed description of the Battle of Brazos River, but one source used does not mention it at all and the other does not go into anywhere near the detail. AIRcorn (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Aircorn, perhaps Kablammo, who addressed the copyvio problems, would be willing to continue working on the article to address whatever other issues you find, including the sourcing of statements. If no one deals with them in the next little while, then it probably makes sense to delist the article, but since the goal of reassessment is actually to try to improve the article so it meets the GA criteria again, perhaps it can be achieved if Kablammo can take on the improvements. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delisting Taking into account all the above I still think this needs to be delisted as I am not confident with the sourcing for this article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)