Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Grand Port

Battle of Grand Port

Hi everyone, in the lull following the completion of a massive article project (Atlantic campaign of 1806) I'm going to try and make the final push on a few articles towards FA standard. The first is this one, which is already an A class article. Its been a few months since I've had a punt at an FAC and I may be a bit rusty, so any and all pointers welcome. I'm esecially interested in what people think of the huge hi-res image that has been added to the middle of the article - I think it is interesting and visually stimulating, but I want to know what peoples general impression is. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woody

A few comments, the article looks very good at the moment

Articles at FAC now require alternative text for the images, see WP:ALT for information.
You might consider using {{Ref label}} for the last two footnotes as they are footnotes rather than refnotes.

I really like "Combat" image, indeed, it is very striking.
Apart from that, I really couldn't find anything that wrong with it. There are a few long sentences, but nothing excessive. All of the images are PD and demonstrably so, they are well captioned and relevant. It is MOS compliant as far as I can work out. So, all looks good to me. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai

This page is pretty good. There are a few minor problems:

Remove sentance starters like even, however, although, etc.
Time zones - it may be unclear what timezone this is. First one should mention it.
A few of the images maybe could be have smaller thumbnails on the mainpage (the full zized image can still be viewed by clicking it).陣内 _Jinnai 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the images statement: the lead image is a standard size (300px), all of the others are standard thumbs, bar the map of the action which is bigger as it wouldn't be legible or useful at a smaller resolution. So in that sense, I think it works as is, in my opinion of course. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the map, but I can understand that. However, 'Grand Port mg6971b.jpg. is much larger than a thumb and does not need to show the kind of details a map needs to.陣内 _Jinnai 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair enough, but that is what Jackyd wants from this peer review: opinions. I count that as 1 for, 1 against! :) Regards, Woody (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your comments, they were all much appreciated and have largely been incorporated. I will be taking this to FAC now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]