Talk:HMS Endeavour/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Replica vessel section, in the last paragraph, you have the boat listed as "HM Barque Endeavour", which is difference from the "Bark" spelling. This should probably be standardized.

   • Done.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • A few places need references:

   • Shipwreck section, end of the third, fourth and sixth paragraphs need refs.
   • Return voyage section, last paragraph
   • Final resting place section, end of first paragraph
   • Replica vessel section, most of second paragraph

   • Ref #3 needs a publisher and access date
   • Ref #15 needs an access date
   • Ref #60 needs a publisher and access date
   • Ref #64 needs a publisher

   • Done, references or parts of references added except for two sentences where the content was intuitive but not possible to source, and which I therefore removed entirely. These sentences were: (1) the observation that "few details were recorded of the scuttled vessels at Rhode Island", while correct, cannot be sourced and is mildly WP:NPOV (how many details are "few details"?); and (2)the sentence noting the six recovered cannons remain the proeprty of the National Museum (NM) - the reference only supports that the two cannons at the Maritime Museum (MM) are on indefinite loan. The remainder aren't mentioned, either in the NM or MM annual reports or elsewhere. While it seems likely they remain in the ownership of the NM there are no references to support this supposition.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a very nice article. I have a few issues with referencing and one with prose, so I am putting the article on hold, but none of them are things that should be too difficult to address. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. From here, there are several things you can do with the article. You can continue improving it, and take it to featured article status, or you can leave it as it is, with only simple maintenance. If you plan to go to FA, I would suggest first going through a peer review, which can be found at WP:Peer Review, or a military-specific one, a link to which can be found at the bottom of the regular PR page. If you wish, you can put it through both PR's, as different people tend to comment, but they cannot be done at the same time. Let me know if you have any further questions. For now, congrats on your first GA article! Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)