Talk:William Grinfield

William Grinfield has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 11, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Grinfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will pick this one up. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Hi, no rush, just pinging in case this has passed you by. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

battle of Lincelles: I think battle can be capitalised here (but not siege as you have correctly done) and also in article body.
- Done.
Grinfield continued in command of the 3rd Guards until 1795...: no antecedence for "continued"
- Reworded
eighteen days later, aged 58.: if we know his age when he died, then we can pin his dob to 1842–1843 and mention in infobox and elsewhere.
- Done.

Early service[edit]

captain and lieutenant-colonel in 1776.: Perhaps "captain and lieutenant-colonel (regimental and army ranks respectively) in 1776."
- The different ranks are noted earlier in the same sentence, do you think the repetition is needed?
  - I have added "respectively" here but delete if you don't like it. This isn't something that I think would justify holding up promotion. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Home service[edit]

major-general should be linked on first mention in previous paragraph
- Done.
Continuing to command the 3rd Foot Guards,...: as per the lead, it hasn't been stated yet that he was commanding the 3rd Foot Guards, just the 1st Battalion of same.
- Reworded to avoid saying that he commanded them. Technically there was a colonel above him who "commanded" the battalion/regiment (I believe there was only one battalion at this point, although it is still described as the "1st Battalion" in source).

Capture of Saint Lucia and Tobago[edit]

640 French soldiers were taken prisoner: numbers shouldn't start a sentence unless written out
- Reworded.
Capture of Saint Lucia and Tobago: on 25 June, attacking Tobago on 30 June. suggest "attacking Tobago five days later" to avoid using close usage of dates.
- Done.

Other stuff[edit]

A lot of the sources are quite historic; I think they will be acceptable for GA but wouldn't be surprised if there is pushback if this goes to A-Class.
- Yep, I initially struggled to find good sources at all. Not an article I'll be taking further, but thought it deserved to at least exist.
Image tags OK

That's about it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Hi, thanks for the review. I've responded to your comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To wrap things up, I did a spotcheck on the online sources, they look to support what they are used to cite. I am satisfied that this meets the requirements of GA so passing now. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]