Talk:Bali Strait Incident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I will be engaging in thoughtful and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Jackyd101, I've finished my review and re-review of your article and find that it meets Good Article criteria. I've made a few comments and suggestions below that should first be addressed prior to its passage. Thanks for all your hard work on this one! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all taken care of, appreciate the review!--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, thank you for addressing my concerns and comments. I appreciated all your hard work on this article, and congratulate you on another job well done! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Bali Strait Incident, establishes the incident's necessary context, and explains why the incident is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the Bali Strait Incident is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• Its a pity there is no image in the template, but this is certainly not a deal breaker for Good Article status.
• Île de France could stand to have Mauritius added behind it, but it isn't absolutely necessary.
• Should "China Fleet" be rendered as such in the lede, rather than China fleet?
• The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Background

• "By 1797" could stand to have a comma in the following pause.
• Île de France appears here again, and could stand to have Mauritius mentioned in parentheses following.
• At first I thought it may help to include an image or map here for geospatial context, but alas, the only map I could locate was the 1818 Pinkerton map of the Dutch East Indies. The images of Peter Rainier, junior and Pierre César Charles de Sercey are both black and white and of low quality, so I guess this section is fine without any of these.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

China Fleet

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Orders of battle

• The tables are beautifully formatted, but I would suggest linking the sources with the harvnb template so that they are connected to the references below in the bibliography.

Aftermath

• Amboyna should be wiki-linked to Ambon, Maluku.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.