Talk:Lord Hugh Seymour

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lord Hugh Seymour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

Hi, I have elected to review this article under the Good Article criteria and should have my initial comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed reviewing this article against the criteria, and although I am not yet prepared to list it as a Good Article it doesn't have far to go and I am placing it on hold. The areas of concern that are currently preventing promotion are listed below, and I will provide a space of seven days for these issues to be addressed or at least evidence that improvements are in the works. Well done so far, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   In the lead, perhaps it should be clarified (if possible) what kind of medal he received for his actions during the battle of the Glorious First of June. Also, what is a "rake" and "dissolution".

   "friend John Willett Payne, but at the age of 11 joined the Navy at his own insistence" - the "but" doesn't appear to set well in this sentence. Maybe rewrite it to someting along the lines of: He was initially educated at Bracken's Academy in Greenwich, where he met lifelong friend John Willett Payne, before joining the Navy at the age of eleven upon his own insistence. Becoming a captain's servant on the yacht William & Mary,[1] two years later he moved to HMS Pearl under his relation Captain John Leveson Gower off Newfoundland.

   "Following the peace in 1783" - would it be possible to clarify what "peace"?

   "becoming MP for Newport on the Isle of Wight but relinquishing it two years later." - The "but" also does not sit well in this sentence. Perhaps change to "before relinquishing the position two years later."

   "Seymour remained there until 1796 when he changed his seat to Portsmouth, where he remained until his death." - Did he remain in the areas or in the positions?

   "the aftermath of the action, Seymour was one of those captains marked out for praise, being presented with a medal commemorating his service during the engagement.[8]" - Two minor things her: "those" captains? Please clarify, and, again, do you know what exactly the medal was? The way it is worded, if seems like the medals is just a plain old service/campaign medal.

   "but fell ill soon after arriving, attacked by Yellow Fever." - "attacked" makes it sound as if someone or something actually assulted the man, when it was a deasese/illness.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   "Leviathan had suffered 11 killed and 32 wounded in the engagement." - this sentence is unreferenced, and needs to be.

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:

   Overall, a very nice article that is quite close to passing. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Other comments

The following comments are not required to pass GAN, but are general comments on article improvement.

• In the lead, perhaps link Seymour's rank and unbold it. In it's present state, it appears the rank is a complete part of his name.

• In the infobox, you have Seymour's service years in the style "XX to XX". Maybe the use of an ndash would be more appropriate?

• Speaking of the infobox, is "Royal Navy" really necessary in the rank section?

• I'm not fussed on the amount of redlinks in the article. Consider unlinking a few.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all the above, with the exception of the buisness with the medal. The medal is this one, a commemorative medal awarded to those captains deemded to have distinguished themselves (a full list is at Glorious First of June#aftermath). It doesn't currently have its own Wikipedia article and I'm not sure how to better describe it. Also, do you think dissolution is clearer now that I have linked rake? Thanks again, --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading the section regarding the medal, it does seem to be clearer now, as is dissolution. I am pleased to now be able to promote this well written and constructed article to GA. Congratulations! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)