Talk:Polycarpus Taylor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assess this one. Zawed (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest trimming the lead to remove the specific mention of the command of the redlink ships. Perhaps rephrase to he commanded a series of vessels, and then lead into the bluelink Fowey

Done.

Initial service: Taylor continued in Wolf throughout this period,...: it is not clear what "this period" is.

Removed.

First commands: in March, but after this offensives...: grammatically this doesn't sit well with me. Maybe add "further" after "this"?

Done.

First commands: Taylor appealed Thurloe's capture of behalf of his crew at a prize court in 1750.: What was the outcome of this? Also, the prize court sat six years after the event; how was it resolved at the time, i.e, 1744? Depending on that, may be this bit about the prize court should be rendered a foot note?

The source does not say how it was resolved - they may have thought it obvious but it really isn't! The event won't have been resolved at the time; prize courts were notoriously slow and nit-picky and any payment would most likely have simply been suspended until then. Again however, the source does not directly say this.

Could a mention of King George's War be worked into the text to justify its inclusion in the infobox? Ditto for the Seven Year War. I think the War of Jenkins Ear could probably be removed.

KG's war is already there ("It was expected at the time that news of war with France would soon reach the West Indies"). Added Seven Years', and added Jenkins' too because I think the infobox is a little more confusing if I remove it and leave all the naval battles on the same level as KG's war. Happy to remove if you think it a real problem though.

I don't know how critical it is to you, but I notice some of the cites are not in sequential order.

Was never taught to put citations in a particular order and have always just done so as they arrive in the text. Won't be taking this article further anyway..!

Image tags OK
No dupe links
Sources look OK. A few are quite dated but considerably outweighed by more recent citations.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Hi, thanks for the review! Have replied to your comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Pinging in case this has passed you by, but no rush. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I totally forgot about this, sorry for the delay. Reviewing the changes, these all look in order. I am happy that this article meets the relevant criteria so am passing this as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]