Talk:Action of 21 October 1794/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 20:48, 25 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) 20:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Jackyd101, I have completed my thorough review and re-review of your article and I assess that it meets all Good Article criteria. I just have a few minor comments below that should be addressed prior to the article's final passage. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 20:58, 25 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 map of important locations in the French Expédition d'Irlande, 1797-1798 is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore free to use here.
• 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

• An "and" or "after which" should be added in the middle of first sentence of the Background section to better connect the declaration of war with the launching of French squadrons.

• Rephrased

• I suggest including the image of Edward Pellew, 1st Viscount Exmouth in this section for added aesthetics.
• This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited within the prose, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Battle

• Should the sentence in the first paragraph read "Pellew's squadron was however too windward of the French ship"?

• No, "to windward" is a relational noun indicating position such as "in front of" or "underneath", not an adjective. It means "in the direction from which the wind is blowing"--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Aftermath

• There should be a colon after "Casualties were light on both sides" in the first sentence.
• This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited within the prose, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Thanks very much for the review!--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anytime Jackyd101! The article looks good to go for Good Article status. Great job, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)