Talk:Invasion of Île Bonaparte/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I have elected to review this article under the Good Article criteria and should have my initial comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed reviewing this article against the criteria, and although I am not yet prepared to list it as a Good Article, it doesn't have far to go and I am placing it on hold. The areas of concern that are currently preventing promotion are listed below, and I will provide a space of seven days for these issues to be addressed or at least evidence that improvements are in the works. Well done so far, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Just a few minor points about clarification:

   Would it be possible to clarify Henry Sheehy Keating's rank during the time of the invasion in the lead?

   Same again for Sir Albemarle Bertie, 1st Baronet and Nicolas Ernault de Rignac Des Bruslys in the "Background" section?

   And again for Guy-Victor Duperré, Samuel Pym, Nesbit Willoughby, Henry Lambert and Lucius Curtis in the "Preparation" section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The following require references/citations:

   The strength and casualties sections in the infobox.

   "The French squadron also captured a number of smaller British warships and the large Portuguese frigate Minerve."

   "On 6 July, Rowley's force rendezvoused with the squadron under Pym, consisting of his frigate HMS Sirius, HMS Iphigenia under Henry Lambert and HMS Magicienne under Lucius Curtis."

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:

Other comments

The following comments are simply for article improvement and/or clarification, and are not required to pass GA:

• Would it be possible to move the two commemorative obelisque images further apart, so as to reduce the white space?
• In the aim of consistancy, please have the access dates used in the citations presented in the same format.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think I've addressed all the above. Some of the problems were caused by an editors "improvements" to the article made a few days ago that I missed on my watchlist. Hopefully it now passes for GA. Thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, all of my concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to pass the article. Congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)