Talk:Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean

Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 13, 2023.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~Lead, P2, S1: the phrase …without discovery any patrolling British ships… seems to be missing a word or something.~~

~~Background, P2, S4: Can you add a few words explaining what the Reconquista in Santo Domingo is?~~

Destruction of HMS Junon, P2, S2: I changed the spelling of word manouvere to manouver. If my change (not sure of the proper Br. Eng. spellings) is incorrect, please restore

My spellchecker seems to be suffering some confusion with this word and so am I, but the trusty OED assures me that the first one was correct. I have changed it back.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Destruction of HMS Junon, P3: The lead says that Shortland was mortally wounded, but this paragraph only details what his wounds were with no mention of his ultimate fate.~~

Do I need to explain it here when it is covered below as well? I don't want to duplicate the information if I can avoid it, and I think it works better in sequence as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Sigh (as I'm hanging my head in shame for missing that) *. No, of course you don't. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for minor prose issues. It's always a pleasure to read articles you've written, Jacky. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI: You can use the template {{'}} (a single straight quote mark) for possessives of ships like this: ''Junon''{{'}}s (instead of ''Junon''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s), which produces Junon's. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I will do so in future. Thanks also for the review. I have made some changes and raised a question with your fourth point.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, so I'm passing. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]