Talk:Action of 9 September 1796

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAction of 9 September 1796 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starAction of 9 September 1796 is part of the East Indies theatre of the French Revolutionary Wars series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2015Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 9, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Rewrite[edit]

Unless anyone minds, I'm planning a quick tidy up of this article over the next few days, similar to my recent work at Battle of Ile Ronde. Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tided and sourced the article - I've also corrected a few things: it was fought on 9 September, not 8 September and off Sumatra, not Mauritius, hence the new title - the old history can be seen at Action of 8 September 1796. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 9 September 1796/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Decent work there like normal, but I have a few comments.

Thanks for this review. I have some questions. Also, has this passed? The last line seems to suggest you passed it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • Fix dashes using the script
  • CharInsert. It is on by default. You can turn it on in your preferences
  • It is unecessary to cites like this The M4 Sherman served in WWII.[1] It later served in the Korean War.[1]
  • I think I've only done this when there is only one ref in the paragraph, in which case I've spaced them out to make it clear the whole paragraph is sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Space between the "p" and number in the cites
  • Is this really necessary? I thought it was up to editor preference?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • You only need one kind of identifier for the references, not two.
  • It means that you don't need both oclcs and isbns for your refs.
  • Please and oclcs or isbns for two of the sources
  • I don't know what an OCLC is or where to find it. The two references without ISBNS were published before ISBNS were invented.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OCLC numbers are found on www.worldcat.org. There are used for identifing refs that were mad before isbns were invented.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  1. ^ a b Zaloga, p. 20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Action_of_9_September_1796&oldid=1204500897"