Talk:Lord Henry Paulet/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead: In general, the lead could better summarize the contents of the article. For example, there is no mention of his parentage or his wife/family in the lead, nor any mention of his death. Also, about a third of the lead tells us what he didn't do (as far as the naval actions he missed out on)

   Much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Lead, S3: This seems to contradict his presence/absence from Jervis' fleet prior to the Battle of St Vincent as mentioned in the text

   Lead, S4: Although the barge and cart story is explained adequately in the text, I was confused by the summary of it in the lead. Perhaps it's too much of a summary here?

   • Promotion and command, P1, S5: Forgive my American ignorance, but what is the "reduction of Martinique"?
   • Promotion and command, P2: This seems logically like it should be two paragraphs: one about service on the Astraea, one for Thalia
   • Promotion and command, current P2, S11: Not trying to be obtuse here, but what does the quote from Paulet mean?
   • Promotion and command, current P3, S4: I would consider rephrasing this sentence—unless "quarterdeck" is also slang for a part of the body—since it seems like the reader is being told where on his body Forbes was struck.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The works in the "References" section should be in alphabetical order
   • Also, why is The Navy List only listed in the "Notes" section and not in the "References" section?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   on hold for seven days — Bellhalla (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a few prose and reference issues keep this from passing on first reading. I'm placing on hold for seven days for these to be addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I've made mention of both, and added some further details. The absence from the two naval battles is I think interesting, as with victories of this nature the involved captains could expect a share in the rewards and favourable consideration for future commands, or service with the victorious admirals. It's an interesting feature of Paulet's career that he stands upon the cusp of not just one but two of only a handful of the major fleet actions fought during the wars with France, and has a share in neither. I've no issue with these mentions being taken out however.

   The lead as rewritten is much better, so I have no problem with the inclusion of the absences. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

2. He was sent with the reinforcement fleet to Jervis's command, but was sent on from there by Jervis a few days prior to the battle. It was another incident of the sort of bad luck that seemed to afflict Paulet in this regard. I've tried to clarify this in the body of the text.
3. I've taken the specific description of the cart/barge story, leaving a note of the general eccentricity, the reader can get the full example later in the text. Does that work for you?

   Yes, that works. Some bits (like this one) can be hard to understand when summarized too much… — Bellhalla (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Reduction in this sense refers to the reducing of the garrison, either by assault, siege, etc to the point that the target surrenders. It's perhaps a little archaic and specialised for general readers, I've changed this to 'capture'.
5. Sectioned.
6. He was indicating to his fellow captain that he had faith that his ship's guns would 'hit hard', i.e. that they would be able to cause considerable damage in a battle, the Thalia would be able to hold their own against an attacker, and therefore he did not fear an engagement. An example of his courageous nature I suppose, but I'm unsure of how to clarify this meaning without drifting into OR by trying to interpret what Paulet meant at the time.

   Oh, I see. It's probably just me not getting it. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

7. I've rephrased this a bit. I think being hit on the quarterdeck would count as being below the belt :)
8. Reordered.
9. I think that was a later addition, possibly by someone else. I've listed in the References as well now.

This is another of my articles that's been put forward by someone else. I wasn't consulted or notified, but I don't mind putting in the work to make it a GA. It's not just one I would have nominated myself. Benea (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's all looking good now, so I'm passing it. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)