Talk:Hudson Bay expedition/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   'Operating under secret orders from the marine minister' - Can he be named?

   'French ship's captain Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse' - This is rather an odd way to open a paragraph, and especially an article. I'd reword with the fact that he was a ship's Captain after his name.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   '(sources disagree on the exact arrival date)' - Would it be best to have a small note here, detailing the sources? At the moment, this is only cited generally in the sentence to a single source.

   'the French agreed to compensate the company for its losses' - Are there any details on this compensation?

   Was the smallpox epidemic a result of the raid, or just incidental?

   Was La Perouse given any rewards for the raid, apart from another expedition? Or was that the reward itself?

   Were either of the Governors censored by the company for not defending their forts?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very good article, well-written and paced, with good detail. A few very minor changes are needed, and then it can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the changes were perhaps a little more than minor, but I think the added details provided good color. I'd like to believe that the translation of Pérouse's report is sufficiently authoritative on the matter of dates that it's suitable for use (in providing definitive dates. (I suspect the confusion in other sources is over exactly what part of the sequence of events constituted "arrival", which is why I've elaborated it. I normally avoid primary sources, but none of the secondary sources seem to provide the story in sufficient detail.)

I believe all of your issues are addressed; if not, let me know. Magic♪piano 03:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

They have indeed been addressed, so I will be passing this. Skinny87 (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)