Talk:East Indies theatre of the French Revolutionary Wars/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Please use either BrE or AmE

• Its supposed to be BrE, but its possible a spellcheck error or two crept in. I can't find them though, can you let me know were this is a problem?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• "traveled" and "defense".--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed myself.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Duplicate links to French Revolution, Dutch Cape Colony, Penang, HMS Victorious, HMS Arrogant, HMS Sybille, HMS Fox, HMS Sceptre, Houghly River, HMS Jupiter, and HMS Tremendous.

• Ok, I've eliminated the second on French Revolution, which was an error. However, the rest of these are relatively obscure links which appear in very different sections and I think that a reader would prefer to have these links where they are. As far as I understand it, the overlinking rules are guidelines subject to editor discretion rather than definitive instructions, and I'd prefer to leave these as they are.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Split the first paragraph in the lead.

   Remove the location parameter in an image if it says "right".

• I've done this, but I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary. What was harmed by leaving the "rights" in place?

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citation #115 should be a note

• Its debateable, but in every other article I've used this metric, including some featured articles, this has gone in the references (as its a reference to a source rather than commentary). I'd rather keep it where it is.

1. Sources #4 and #7 in the bibliography should have the "ref=harv" parameter removed

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   First two images in article lack U.S PD tags

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I've left a number of comments and questions - if I haven't queried the point, its been addressed. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)