Talk:Bombardment of Papeete/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  You have Maxime Destremau linked in the infobox but not in the main body of the article - should be consistent, one way or the other.

FixedXavierGreen (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  Your first entry under References doesn't appear to be cited, in which case it should appear under Further Reading.

It is cited as forestry throughout the text.XavierGreen (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  I realise a bit more on the background has been added since I first peer reviewed this but I still think we need a slight expansion, maybe just an extra phrase or sentence. Specifically, what had von Spee and his force been doing in Tsingtao or, in other words, what was that action that turned out to be the last they'd see until Papeete? I expect to see something like "Having seen no action at all since leaving Tsingtao, where they... etc, etc, the men of the German East Asian Squadron..."

The only signifigant event that occured with Spee's main force after leaving Tsingtao was when he tried to catch the Samoa Expeditionary Force in port at Apia, but they had already left the colony by the time he arrived so he moved on without attempting to dislodge the New Zealanders occupying the territory. I added a little bit to the opening sentence of the section to reflect this.XavierGreen (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  All up I think this is very good, as before when I peer reviewed for MilHist. If you can look at the minor points raised I'll have no problem passing it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, all points addressed - passed and well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)