Talk:Ganteaume's expeditions of 1801

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ganteaume's expeditions of 1801/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Will start the review later today.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this review still underway, or have you finished?--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's's done

Thanks -replied below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot about the references publisher location but I did all the ones I could just now. Is this ready to pass?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	References Please include dates for citations, to be verifiable. The citation dates are in the bibliography and none are missing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Should add location for publishers, for consistency I'm traveling for work, probably won't be able to do this for a couple of weeks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Copyedit Check this for any mistakes First Expedition under the commander Richard Dalling Dunn No. "Commander" is a specific Royal Navy rank. Order of battle Should seperate the ORBAT to a seperate article. I don't think that is a good idea. It would make a very short list article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Dup links to "ship of the line, frigate, Mediterranean Sea, and Ottoman Empire" Yes, once in the lead and once in the main text. This is deliberate as per the [[[WP:MOS]].
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Needs citation for the last sentence of the section "Aftermath", since it is slightly controversial. I don't think it is actually, but I've added one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Probably needs more images to meet with guidelines. Guidelines do not specify a minimum number of images, only that the article is appropriately illustrated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) An Infobox would be good (like {{Infobox Battle}}) Its not a battle, so that infobox would be unsuitable. A correct infobox probably could be found, but since this is not a clearly defined military operation between two designated forces it would probably create more confusion than it resolved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.