Talk:Jean Augustin Ernouf

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Your changes to this article are good improvements, and the article is nearly there. On a related note, you will have seen that I created an article related to this one earlier this year, the Invasion of Guadeloupe (1810). In researching that, all the naval sources called him Manuel Ernouf, and so that is what I linked to. I'm glad to have it clarified for me.

I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "on 23 Frimaire" - While I think the use of Revolutionary calendar dates here is quite a neat trick (and it could be expanded to other dates in this section), you need to give the Gregorian calendar dates afterwards in brackets as well. done

• I'm curious as to why this one date is recorded in the FRC and the other dates in this section are not?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I added three, basically because they were notable revolutionary dates (one was the last day of year I). It's too gimmicky to do the whole article that way.

• "at the so-called Capesterre," - why so-called?--it's a French term, according to the Adkinses. Added some explanation.
• "III Division" and "3. Division" - format the names of divisions consistently

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• War for all the Oceans is by Roy and Lesley Adkins. Please amend your citations to credit both authors. Done

• Not done: you need to amend the reference (11) and the bibliography.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) NOW done.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• What happened to Ernouf between 1794 - 1799? added a sentence or two--
• "and Saint-Domingue" - what were his actions / responsibility in this colony (which by 1804 was almost completely in Haitian hands)? the bio material on him did not say. Do you know?

• I'd imagine all he did was to deal with the refugees from Saint Domingue on Guadeloupe. I think this needs to be clarified a little further. Maybe you can state where he was based (Guadeloupe), or comment that by 1804 Saint Domingue had been overrun by Haitian forces.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I added some clarification.

• "Despite a lengthy and spirited defense" - Nine days is not a lengthy defence, although I will grant that it was fairly spirited. fixed

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• List the Zurich battles in the infobox

A couple of points still to address, but good work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) this should meet your concerns. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Points addressed, happy to pass this now. Congratulations--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)