Talk:Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Bellhalla in topic GA Review
 | Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 13, 2023. | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
-
Lead, P2, S1: the phrase …without discovery any patrolling British ships… seems to be missing a word or something.Background, P2, S4: Can you add a few words explaining what the Reconquista in Santo Domingo is?- Destruction of HMS Junon, P2, S2: I changed the spelling of word manouvere to manouver. If my change (not sure of the proper Br. Eng. spellings) is incorrect, please restore
- My spellchecker seems to be suffering some confusion with this word and so am I, but the trusty OED assures me that the first one was correct. I have changed it back.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Destruction of HMS Junon, P3: The lead says that Shortland was mortally wounded, but this paragraph only details what his wounds were with no mention of his ultimate fate.
- Do I need to explain it here when it is covered below as well? I don't want to duplicate the information if I can avoid it, and I think it works better in sequence as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- * Sigh (as I'm hanging my head in shame for missing that) *. No, of course you don't. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do I need to explain it here when it is covered below as well? I don't want to duplicate the information if I can avoid it, and I think it works better in sequence as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- On hold for seven days for minor prose issues. It's always a pleasure to read articles you've written, Jacky. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
As an FYI: You can use the template {{'}} (a single straight quote mark) for possessives of ships like this: ''Junon''{{'}}s (instead of ''Junon''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s), which produces Junon's. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, I will do so in future. Thanks also for the review. I have made some changes and raised a question with your fourth point.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good, so I'm passing. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, I will do so in future. Thanks also for the review. I have made some changes and raised a question with your fourth point.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)