Talk:Lamellerie's expedition/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   "astonishing, given the weakness of the opposition and [the strength of his] own combined force", -needs a ref, since the rest of the sentence refers to a separate work, both should be cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Not Yet

   1. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't hold an article for lack of images, but I feel that there are plenty of potential images for this one. Any of the major people, ships, or locations involved can surely be illustrated on the article.

I would love to have an image for this, but unfortunately I have been unable to locate one of either the events, ships or men involved. I know there is an image of Hydra capturing Babet at the National Maritime Museum, but unfortunately it has not been put online yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Something is wrong with the Order of Battle table. The bottom "source" cell seems to be disrupting the whole table. This should be fixed.

It looks fine to me, what seems to be the problem?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting question; it seems to have corrected itself so I'm going to assume the problem is with my computer. —Ed!^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Is there any kind of infobox that we can use for this kind of article?

The only one that srpings to mind - the military conflict one - doesn't really apply here as there was no concerted British response to the operation and thus it would be overbalanced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   On Hold for a few minor issues. 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made some replies and am awaiting your feedback. Many thanks for looking at the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good, they are addressed to my satisfaction. The article now meets the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)