Talk:Action of 16 October 1799

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 16 October 1799/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 19:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Jackyd101, I have completed a thorough review and re-review of this article and I find that it exceeds all Good Article criteria. I just have a few minor comments below that should be addressed prior to the article's final passage to Good Article status. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the naval engagement, establishes context for the naval engagement, explains why the naval engagement is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the naval engagement.
• The info box is beautifully-formatted and its contents are sourced from internally-cited references.
• The image of HMS Ethalion in action is releasable to the public domain and is therefore free to use here.
• Great Britain should be written as such throughout the article for consistency's sake.

• Done when referring to the political entity, not when referring to the island.

• The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

• This section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Chase

• An image of HMS Naiad (1797) should be included in this section for aesthetics.

• The only image of this ship is in a post-Trafalgar context from 1805 and Naiad isn't the biggest ship in the image so using it here might be misleading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Consider renaming the section "Pursuit," although this is merely a suggestion.
• This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Battle

• This section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

• This section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

• Thanks for the review, done or replied!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Jackyd101, thank you for quickly addressing my comments and concerns. I've reviewed the article and hereby pass it to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done. -- Caponer (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)