Talk:Java campaign of 1806–1807/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'British Royal Navy forces against the forces of the Kingdom of Holland,' - Repetition of 'forces'

   Repetition of 'was able' in the second paragraph of the lede

   'At the start of 1806, control in the Indian Ocean in the Napoleonic Wars was disputed' - 'of the Indian Ocean' would seem better.

   'but were still insufficient' - 'but their forces were still insufficient' needs to be added, I think, as we're referring to the British being unable to effect complete control of the ocean. Either that or replace 'insufficient' with 'unable'. Either/or, really.

   Repetition of 'too concerned' in Background section

   'Batavia roads' - What context is 'roads' used here? It doesn't seem to have been used previously.

   'Captain Pellew opened fire on the other grounded ships while boats boarded them in turn' - Should probably be clarified, as I doubt he fired when the boats were actually boarding the vessels!

   Couple of instances in the Griesse section where you use variations on 'without a single casualty', and it seems a little peacockish; I'd suggest getting rid of 'single' to make it more neutral.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   'Cautious of the larger force' - Should probably mention he believed one ship to be a ship of the line.

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:

That's about it. Good article, needs a few details checked before I can pass it. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I have addressed all of the above, let me know if there are any more problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)