Talk:Action of 13 January 1797/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is an interesting and well-written article. At times, I wasn't sure that the tone was encyclopedic; it can seem more like a story than an article. I wasn't sure whether to ask that this be dealt with, but I ultimately decided that I would just be asking you to make the article less engaging. That doesn't seem to be productive, so I only have a few concerns:

There is inconsistency in the dates. Some are preceded by "the" while others are not. I would recommend not using "the", as this would make for better consistency with the article title.

Done.

This is still inconsistent, as it was a problem in several places throughout the article.

GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any more (except the one in the title of the image, which is a direct quote), can you point them out?--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"the men on the one the remained upright were forced to cut the rope" - I think the third "the" is supposed to be something else.~~

Done

"the waves stove in the stern of the ship" - is there another word for "stove" that would help make the article more accesible?

Can't think of one, what's wrong with stove?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one that most people use. I can't remember hearing or seeing it in the past decade.

GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of another word. To be honest, stove is acceptable in any nautical publication, used in nautical circles (among others) and I use it myself fairly frequently. I really don't see why it is a problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are there no free references available that could be used in addition to the subscription ones (ie. other sites that give the same information)?~~

Other than the two free sources already present (24 & 35), no.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I believe that this is fine, as the information is not one-sided, contentious, about a living person, or relied upon for the bulk of the article's information.

The online references are formatted in a strange way. For example, is Colpoys or Laughton the author of reference 4? I recommend using Template:Cite web and Template:Cite journal for the online references.

Colpoys is in the article, he was an admiral of the period. Laughton is a noted historian (as explained at his link) and thus the author of the dictionary entry.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to see them formatted more consistently with other articles, and I think that the templates I mentioned are the best way. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it.

It might be nice to have the images staggered left-right rather than all along the right margin. Some editors don't like the staggering, though, and the Manual of Style only says that they "can" be staggered, not that they must.

I usually do stagger them, but never after a heading as I feel a heading should always be directly followed by text. All these images come under headings and so I have chosen to put them on the right.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I have moved one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will place this nomination on hold to allow these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can e left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have dealt with your concerns, but I'm not really sure what you mean by "it can seem more like a story than an article", can't it be both? To me that is the definition of excyclopedic text. Are there any points that you feel are inappropriate? Thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on the talk page and thanks for catching those problems. 1) my mistake, I copied the formatting and must have forgotten to change one of the dates 2)a mistake I copied from the image description file here. As the date is obviously incorrect, I have deleted it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "story" comment, I didn't phrase it well. The article is well-written, and it is very engaging. Perhaps that is what I meant to say — I've reviewed 33 nominations this month, and this one stands out as the most interesting and detailed prose. All things considered, though, I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.

I am promoting the article, as I believe that it meets all six of the GA criteria. Congratulations! GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]