Talk:Siege of Pondicherry (1793)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! I've done most of these, although I skipped two - explanations below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, thank you again for your timely response to my review and comments below. I've re-reviewed the article and find that you gave sufficiently incorporated the majority of my suggestions. As for the colonies comment, I was trying to explain that the places mentioned were not their own individually-governed colonies, but a collection of places under colonial rule from Pondicherry. As it stands, the writing still works, I just thought the nomenclature could be modified. Great work, and congratulations on another job well done! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Jackyd101, as promised, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article. I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status, but I did have a few comments and suggestions that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thanks again for all your hard work on this one! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:37, 18 June 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 adequately defines the Siege of Pondicherry, establishes the siege's necessary context, and explains why the siege is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the siege is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image of the French map depicting the 1778 Siege of Pondicherry has been released into the public domain, and is therefore suitable for usage here in this article.
• The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background

• I suggest adding a comma after the natural pause following "In the 1790s"

• Reads better to me the way it is, hope thats OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Siege of Pondicherry

• In the first paragraph, I wonder if it may read better rendered as "Upon investigation, however, this ship proved to be..."
• A comma could be added after "On 28 July" in the second paragraph.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Aftermath

• Would it read better this way at the beginning of the first paragraph? "British losses of 88 killed and 131 wounded during the siege were relatively heavy;"
• Since the place names mentioned weren't individual "French colonies" per se, but were "colonial possessions" of France on the Indian subcontinent, I wonder if it may be more appropriate to refer to them as colonial possessions rather than colonies. Again, this is merely a suggestion.

• I'm not sure what the difference is, can you clarify?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.