Talk:Battle of Roatán/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 13:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll begin this review shortly! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be advised that my internet connectivity is extremely erratic at the moment because of travel and I may be delayed in responding to the review. Magic♪piano 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

ok! no worries! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

review

• Very nice. Clearly written. I have just one question. I don't understand this sentence: "For logistical and diplomatic reasons, no operations were launched until after the American victory at Yorktown in October 1781 opened the possibility that the British would be able to better defend the area. (Seems like it would be a good time to launch an attack while the British were buy at Yorktown - or am I misunderstanding?) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The point is that (the Spanish believed) the attack could not be launched earlier: sufficient troops and provisions were not thought to be ready, and there was diplomatic activity between the powers that also played a role in delaying action. The impact of Yorktown was that it spelled the reduction of British troops in North America. The specter of British troops being redeployed from North America to other theaters seems to be what prompted the Spanish to move. I've added some words that I hope clarify this. Magic♪piano 20:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

reply

• But wouldn't the "redeployed" British troops be free to go to the Caribbean? (I'm not quite understanding; perhaps its my poor knowledge of the area's history.)
• also, "(sometimes also spelled "Rattan")" - perhaps this should go at the beginning of the article?

MathewTownsend (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Well yes, the Caribbean would be one of those "other theaters". I thought this was clear. Magic♪piano 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

• Informative! A great little article! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)