Talk:Action of 18 August 1798

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 18 August 1798/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'while Leander had been detached by Nelson on 6 August, passenger Captain Edward Berry charged with carrying despatches to the squadron under Earl St Vincent off Cadiz.' - Some rogue words here, unsure what is trying to be said or I'd fix it myself.

   'On 1 August 1798 British fleet of 13 ships of the line and one fourth rate ship under Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson' - 'A British fleet', little thing.

   'a convoy under its protection which carried the French army under Napoleon Bonaparte intended for the invasion of Egypt.' - Would suggest replacing'under' with 'commanded' to avoid repetition of the former.

   'Pushing through the gap, Foley attacked the French van from the landward side' - can we wikilink 'van' please?

   'Only four French ships: two ships of the line and two frigates, escaped' - The colon doesn't seem to work here, and replacing with a comma would seem to be the best line of action.

   'Généreux managed to escape from Corfu to Brindisi, where Le Joille was killed by artillery fire from the castle overlooking the town.' - This is a tad confusing. Who controlled the town, and if they were the enemy why did he sail there?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   'This left Thompson with just 282 men on board Leander.' - What was the ship's usual full complement, then? It would be handy to know, putting the number before or after this number.

• I think roughly 350, although the source doesn't say. I will do a bit of research this weekend and see if I can find out.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent article, and the controversial elements are handled with aplomb and NPOV as far as I can tell. A few more things to clear up this time, mostly copy-editing, and then it can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! One reply given and all other points addressed. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is all good - the ships' complement doesn't seem to be a major point that will hold up the promotion. Excellent work! Skinny87 (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)