Talk:Arthur Cumming (Royal Navy officer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot

• no dabs found by the tools;
• no issues with external links.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• the date presentation in the infobox is different to elesewhere (e.g "6 May 1817" as opposed to "May 6, 1817"). Can this be made consistent?

Done, the template used defaults to American dates - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the infobox, in the "Commands held" field, the year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH;

I am afraid I am one of those incorrigible people who will continue to type hyphens instead of en dashes for the sake of speed until they put an en dash button on keyboards! I have fixed these instances - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the infobox, the "Commands held" field might look cleaner if each appointment was on a different line;

Agreed. Done - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the lead, "...promoted Commander...". I think there is a word missing here, should it be: "...promoted to Commander"?

As far as I know either can be used, perhaps it is a British English thing. See The Times or Telegraph for example - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• there is an issue with the capitalisation of ranks. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms ranks should only be capitalised if used as a title. E.g. Admiral Arthur Cumming, and Cumming was promoted to admiral...;

Thanks, I was unaware of that. I have fixed all the instances I have seen - Dumelow (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• the "HMS Emerald" section heading - I think "Emerald" should be in italics as it is the ship's name;

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Early life section, "By 1840 Cumming was at HMS Excellent..." this might sound better as "By 1840 Cumming was stationed at HMS Excellent...";

Indeed it would. Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the South America section, "ships pinnace" - there should be a possessive apostrophe in "ships" ("ship's pinnace");

Done - Dumelow (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the South America section, "pinnaces crew" - possessive apostrophe ("pinnace's crew");

Done - Dumelow (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Syrian War section you have "Commander in Chief", however, elsewhere there is "Commander-in-Chief". These are presented slightly differently, but should be consistent;

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Crimean War section "...appointed Commander..." (do you mean "appointed captain?");

I didn't use captain to avoid confusion between him being captain of the vessel (with the rank of commander) and being promoted to the rank of Captain (which is mentioned later in the same sentence). I have reworded this section to avoid this - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• endashes are required for the value ranges "4-500" and "2-3 cannons";

Done - Dumelow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Admiral section, "neighbourhood" and "neighbouring" appear in the same sentence, for variety you might consider rewording "neighbouring room" to "an adjacent room";

Well spotted, I have changed it to your recommendation - Dumelow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Admiral section, "current terms" - I think this should be "in 2010 terms", because current is subjective and the figure would need to be updated yearly with inflation unless you stipulate a year specifically;

I have added approximately due to the difficulty of applying inflation models to currency. I have left it as "current" because the template in there will update itself automatically with each year - Dumelow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Admiral section, the sentence about Cumming's death is not related to the paragraph in which it is situated, so it should probably be broken off into its own paragraph. Do we know what the cause of his death was? Did he survive his wife and children?

I will have a look through and see if I can find enough to add to it to split it off - Dumelow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added another sentence and split it off - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• No issues;
• Suggestion: Admirals of the World: A Biographical Dictionary, 1500 to Present by William Stewart, p. 83 has a small amount of information, but doesn't seem to have much which isn't already covered in the article. If you decide to take this to FAC, though, I'd suggest trying to work it in if you can;

Thanks for the source, I have incorporated anything new from it - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• in the Syrian War section, do we know exactly what Cumming's part in the action was? Do the sources elaborate on this? The source consulted seems just to say "bravery", but even then adding that to the article might clarify it a little (otherwise readers might not know if it was for "distinguished service" or "bravery", which would imply a different type of involvement);

The sources don't specify. I have added bravery to make it a little more specific - Dumelow (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Crimean War section, the Admirals of the World source listed above, mentions "nineteen ships" being boarded by Cumming's crew between 15 April and 22 May, you might consider adding that in;

Have done, thanks for the info - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the HMS Emerald section, do we know why Emerald ran aground? Was it something that Cumming did, or was he punished/admonished etc. for it? If the sources don't say anything that is fine;

Unfortunately the sources don't say. Would be nice to know, the Emerald certainly made a habit of it! If Cumming was responsible it doesn't seem to have harmed his promotion prospects too much - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• I believe that these are okay, but I have had trouble with understanding image policies in the past, so if you are considering taking this to ACR or FAC, I suggest asking someone with more authority in this area to take a quick look.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Overall I believe that this is fine article, although I just have a few comments that I feel should be addressed before promoting to GA. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, well done. I have passed this for GA now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)