Talk:First Battle of Algeciras/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On the whole, I believe that this article is up to the standard required of a GA. I have a few suggestions/comments that I think should be discussed before completing the review, though:

I gave the article a minor copy edit. I believe that it is sufficiently well written for GA standards, but I would advise seeking a more thorough copy edit before taking it to FAC if that is where it is headed (observation only);
the Featured article tools report one dab link which should be fixed if possible: [1]

Fixed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might need clarification: "On sighting the British squadron, orders were given for the French ships to". Who gave the orders?

Fixed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"with the squadron's Royal Marines" - I'm not certain, but I think that the "Royal" prefix hadn't been conferred at the time (I think it was 1802 that they became Royal Marines, but I'm not 100 percent certain of that). It might be better just to say "with the squadron's Marines";

Surprisingly you are correct on this point - I never knew that. Fixed--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the images lack alt text. It is not a GA requirement, and I won't hold it against the article, but you might consider adding it in: [2] (suggestion only);
I'm not sure what the relevant policy is, but I seem to recall from a few FACs that rank is not used for people listed in infoboxes (suggestion only);

If this is an FAC rule, I disagree with it and am not following it - the relative ranks of commanders is in my opinion an important detail (thanks for raising the question though).

in the Bibliography, some of the works have publishing locations, but others do not. It is not a GA requirement, but it would improve consistency of style if these could be added for the items currently missing them. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

no major dramas. In a couple of places I found the language a little awkward, but that possibly reflects the topic and the language employed by those familiar with the topic/sources. Overall, I believe the article's prose to be of a good standard and with a few tweaks here and there from someone with more copyediting skills and topic knowledge than myself, I don't think that the article would have dramas attaining a higher rating. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

well referenced to WP:RS sources. Every paragraph/major point is covered and nothing appeared to be OR to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Covers everything that I, as a lay person, expected to find and didn't seem to go into unnecessary detail. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Seems well balanced. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

No dramas that I can see. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

the image licences look fine to me. I've tweaked a few of them to include the author's date of birth and death so that the ones that use "author's life + ... years" can be certain. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I believe this article is of GA quality. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats great news, thankyou very much! I've already started work on your improvements and I'll finish them up over the weekend. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sorry to close it so quickly, but I'm pretty happy with the article and I've just been told this morning that I will probably have to go interstate for the next week or so, so I might not be online for the next seven days or so. Anyway, I didn't feel the need to make you wait. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]