Talk:Action of 12 May 1796

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 12 May 1796/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Jackyd101, I have completed a thorough review and re-review of this article and I assess it to meet all the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that should be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you again for your incredible efforts in completing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 16:07, 22 February 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 stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the naval engagement, establishes context for the naval engagement, explains why the naval engagement is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the naval engagement.
• The info box is beautifully-formatted and its contents are sourced from internally-cited references.
• The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

• This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Battle

• Batavian captain and Dutch captain seem to be used interchangeably here. For consistency's sake, select either Batavian or Dutch to describe the captain and fleet throughout the article's prose.
• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

• This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Batavian and Dutch were used interchangeably in the sources, but I appreciate it is confusing and have settled on Batavian as the more technically accurate term. Thanks for the review!--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, upon my review and re-review of your article following your edits, I find that this article meets the criteria for Good Article status and hereby pass it to a GA! Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)