Talk:Action of 25 September 1806/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'The principal naval campaign of 1806 was the Atlantic campaign of 1806' - I think this could be more easily worded - the repetition of 1806 seems odd; perhaps using a larger wikilink somehow?

   'One of their most important targets was the city of Rochefort' - Why was it one of the most important targets? What is it about Rochefort - apart from being a port, I guess.

   'Hood abandoned his previous orders and raised news signals ordering a general chase' - Just a slight grammatical error there :)

   I'm not sure, but 'while the lumbering HMS Windsor Castle was sent after the three south bound ships' sounds a bit POV to me - do the sources call it 'lumbering'?

   'This halved his available cannon and as a result his isolated ship began to suffered severe damage to its rigging and sails' - another little spelling mistake

   More of an enquiry really, but when Hood was shot, why was his second in command only a Lieutenant? Would there not have been a more senior officer present?

In the Royal Navy of the time, the rank of commodore was not a formal "pay grade" as it were, but an honorary title for the most senior post captain in a squadron (although I think there were also some requirements relating to the size of the squadron).--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The article states nine killed, but the OoB only shows seven. Which is correct? Same problem for the wounded - different numbers in the article and OoB.

Whoops: this was an issue where two sources disagree and I neglected to sort out the confusion. Sorry, I'll look it up and fix the problem.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Haven't reviewed some of your articles in a while, JD, but I'm happy to see they're as good as they always have been. A few things to iron out, and then I'll pass it. Skinny87 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have done all but two of your points and will address the others soon. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been delayed a bit by RL issues, can you hold this open a bit longer?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not in a hurry. You take your time! Skinny87 (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its done now, thanks for waiting.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)