Wikipedia

Talk:HMS Resistance (1782)/GA1

< Talk:HMS Resistance (1782)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Simongraham in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

After the thorough review that was undertaken by the author of a GA nomination of mine, I thought I would return the favour. I will start an assessment shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Assessment

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The six good article criteria:

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Comments

edit
  • This article was created on 4 January 2022 and is currently ranked B class.
  • 99.9% of authorship is by Pickersgill-Cunliffe.
  • The article is of reasonable length with 3,553 words of readable prose, plus a table of prizes and an infobox.
  • The infobox and main text are illustrated by relevant images. Although not a GA criterion, I suggest adding ALT tags following MOS:ALT as this is considered good practice.
  • It is noted that the image "The Argo with a Russian ship passing through the straits.jpg" is suggested for transfer to Wikipedia Commons. I suggest taking a look at this and seeing if it can be actioned.
  • There are substantial notes which are separately referenced. simongraham (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit

GA1

  • "then went for a refit at Jamaica," should be "then went for a refit in Jamaica".
  •   Done
  • Consider adding a comma to "as the rearmost ship began to sail away she lost her mainmast" so that it reads "as the rearmost ship began to sail away, she lost her mainmast".
  •   Done
  • "Having returned to Portsmouth some time after this". Please clarify "some time".
  • There is no date provided for her return. I have removed this part.
  •  Please correct "Philipines" to " Philippines", "sea bed" to "seabed" and "slavey" to"slavery".
  •   Done
  • I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

GA2

  • References are from reliable sources.
  • There is the occasional risk of WP:CITEKILL . For example, "Early in the afternoon of 8 March a landing party captured the island after a short defence by the Dutch garrison forces there." is followed by four references. Are all these necessary?
  • Removed the Winfield reference, which just repeated what the others already provided.
  • The ISBN format is inconsistent. Recommend making them all fit one format.
  • Have made an attempt but am unsure if that was the kind of inconsistency you're describing.
  • Suggest adding OCLC numbers to the 19th Century references (e.g. Brenton, 1837).
  • Could not find correct OCLC numbers for three references but did the others. Am not an expert on this, please say if I've missed something.
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector states there is a 9.1% likelihood of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely.

GA3

  • Main aspects are covered.
  • The topic is covered in detail.

GA4

  • There is a lack of the voice of non-Europeans. For example, the note to the statement "to which the local population resisted" only posits Dutch motivations. Did the "local population" include non-Europeans? If so, what were their motives for resistance?
  • Have reworded this sentence. The attack seems to have mostly been undertaken by the local Timor-men, but it is only couched in terms of how and why the Dutch commanded or persuaded them to do so.
  • Otherwise, the topic is generally covered neutrally, particularly the fate of the ship.

GA5

  • There is no evidence of edit wars or content disputes. In fact, this is a very stable page.

GA6

  • Images are relevant and have appropriate public domain tags.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Please take a look at the above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Resistance_(1782)/GA1&oldid=1065435188"