Talk:Action of 26 July 1806

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 26 July 1806/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'with the intention of eliminating the Dutch squadron maintained on Java' - 'based in Java'?

Done

1. 'in preparation for a larger force under Rear-Admiral Sir Edward Pellew later in the year' - To do what?

Done

1. 'In the evening of 25 July' - 'On the evening'?

Done

1. 'Elphinstone then threw his sails back' - What does this mean?

Done

1. 'As the damage and casualties mounted on Pallas, Harrier joined the attack and the gunfire from the Dutch ship slackened and finally stopped at 06:10, the Dutch flag was struck from the mast and Pallas surrendered with over 40 casualties from a crew of 250 (including 50 local recruits).' - Run-on sentence, split into two please.

Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Again, a little bit about the Dutch being a client state at the start of the article would be helpful as context.

Done

1. 'while William, bringing up the rear of the Dutch line, pulled out completely and sailed for the coast' - Any idea why it cut and fled, presumably against orders?

Sources do not say, although I presume that the captain considered himself hopelessly outnumbered.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No table of the vessels and casualties involved? Obviously not a requirement, but I've seen them in your articles before.

I thought about it, and even tried to put one together, but a table like that would have several holed: casualties and armaments of the East Indiamen are not clear or separated and it creates more confusion to duplicate incomplete information. I have therefore decided not to use one, although if you insist I have no problem discussing it further.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good article, doesn't need much to be upto GA standard. Skinny87 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, a high standard as always.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Welp, I can't find anything wrong now, so passing it. Congrats! Skinny87 (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)