Talk:Siege of St. John's/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
I've never heard of this battle, so it was an interesting read. I have the following comments:
- The lead should make it clear what war this formed part of
- The first para of the Background section would benefit from a clearer explanation of the geography (for instance, that Plaisance was on Newfoundland, not far from St. Johns)
- "although his command was contested for a variety of reasons" - what were the reasons?
- "They first captured Bay Bulls and Ferryland" - where are these locations relative to St Johns?
- Do we know what happened to the brigantine?
- Fryer says that the French didn't intend to capture St. Johns during this operation - this seems worth mentioning (eg, was this a raid rather than an attempt to conquer the settlement?)
- I actually think Fryer is wrong on this point, she makes it sound like they didn't even bother landing at St. John's (and it is somewhat outside the main topic of her piece). All the other sources are fairly clear (the Subercase DCB entry especially) that destruction of St. John's was a major objective. Magic♪piano 21:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Subercase had wanted to surprise the English, but the opportunity was lost when his advance guard, unfamiliar with the area, approached within sight of the English defences, and was driven off by cannon fire" - the source doesn't quite support this: it says that the attack failed because only the advance guard arrived (eg, that the cause of the failure was that the rest of the force didn't move as fast as planned rather than the advance guard messing up)
- You could also note the ubstantial numbers of prisoners taken, boats destroyed and guns destroyed noted by Marley
- Some of the images need their copyright tags fixed:
Thanks a lot for stepping in here Magicpiano. My comments are now all addressed, and I'm pleased to pass this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Assessment[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- No OR, but some minor errors and omissions as noted above
- D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused (see summary style):
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- minor errors and omissions as noted above - the French seem to have done better than the article currently implies
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All should be PD, but need their tags corrected
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
