Talk:Polycarpus Taylor

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll assess this one. Zawed (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest trimming the lead to remove the specific mention of the command of the redlink ships. Perhaps rephrase to he commanded a series of vessels, and then lead into the bluelink Fowey

• Done.

• Initial service: Taylor continued in Wolf throughout this period,...: it is not clear what "this period" is.

• Removed.

• First commands: in March, but after this offensives...: grammatically this doesn't sit well with me. Maybe add "further" after "this"?

• Done.

• First commands: Taylor appealed Thurloe's capture of behalf of his crew at a prize court in 1750.: What was the outcome of this? Also, the prize court sat six years after the event; how was it resolved at the time, i.e, 1744? Depending on that, may be this bit about the prize court should be rendered a foot note?

• The source does not say how it was resolved - they may have thought it obvious but it really isn't! The event won't have been resolved at the time; prize courts were notoriously slow and nit-picky and any payment would most likely have simply been suspended until then. Again however, the source does not directly say this.

• Could a mention of King George's War be worked into the text to justify its inclusion in the infobox? Ditto for the Seven Year War. I think the War of Jenkins Ear could probably be removed.

• KG's war is already there ("It was expected at the time that news of war with France would soon reach the West Indies"). Added Seven Years', and added Jenkins' too because I think the infobox is a little more confusing if I remove it and leave all the naval battles on the same level as KG's war. Happy to remove if you think it a real problem though.

• I don't know how critical it is to you, but I notice some of the cites are not in sequential order.

• Was never taught to put citations in a particular order and have always just done so as they arrive in the text. Won't be taking this article further anyway..!

• Image tags OK
• No dupe links
• Sources look OK. A few are quite dated but considerably outweighed by more recent citations.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zawed: Hi, thanks for the review! Have replied to your comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zawed: Pinging in case this has passed you by, but no rush. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, I totally forgot about this, sorry for the delay. Reviewing the changes, these all look in order. I am happy that this article meets the relevant criteria so am passing this as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)