Talk:Action of 27 June 1798/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'but despite an extensive search Foote was unable to relay the information to Nelson before the Battle of the Nile on 1 August.' - Would this be about the location of the convoy? If so , it would be best to clarify that. Also, I assume you mean he searched for Nelson, but couldn't find him? Clarification again would be good.

   'Much of this was auctioned off, while other treasures were to be transported to France, along with men wounded during the invasion and dispatches carried by General Louis Baraguey d'Hilliers' - I would mention here that d'Hilliers was wounded, as it's mentioned in the lede.

   'The storm had also detached the squadron's frigates,' - I don't think 'detached' is the correct phrasing here, as the storm didn't command them :)

   'to be joined by additional forces from Genoa, Corsica and Civitavecchia it passed south through the Ligurian Sea' - 'as it passed', only a minor thing.

   'Among the goods seized from the frigate were the complete French code books' - Code books for what? A part of the military, or all of it? Or did it contain diplomatic codes as well?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Is there a wikilink anywhere we can add for the French invasion of Malta?

• The best account of it on Wikipedia (though I say so myself), is at Mediterranean campaign of 1798, which is already linked. I didn't have enough material to write a whole article on it, although with the right reference materials I expect one could be drawn up.

1. Just curious, any idea what happened to Foote or his First Lieutenant?

• Foote has his own article, from which I incorporated some information about his service in the following year. I have no further information about Lieutenant Wilmot I'm afraid.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent article, with very little to do - but then that describes all of your article, Jacky. Look forward to passing it, and excellent reading as usual. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reivew. I always appreciate your reviews, you leave thoughtful comments and questions that never fail to improve the article, and your input is always greatly appreciated. I have addressed all of the points above except those at which I have left replies. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Looks good, no problems with promoting this. Skinny87 (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)