Talk:Wager Mutiny/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Grandiose in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

A few things to do here:

  • Lead (see WP:LEAD): too short; a good lead is as good as a really short article. Consider two long paragraphs or three shorter ones for this length of article.
  • Layout (see WP:LAYOUT): too many level two headings. Consider breaking the main story into 2 or three chunks with level three headings. Also the headings themselves are a little long (not too mush of a problem).
  • Coverage: the section "HMS Wager" is too short (and lacks citations). We don't really get an idea from that and the following section what the Wager was doing without reading the other articles (which we shouldn't have to unless we wanted further details).
  • Sourcing: I've indicated some citations needed (about a dozen). (Page ranges should be shown using en-dashes; see WP:DASH).
  • Tone: As Wager, now alone, continued beating to the west, the question remained, when to turn north? - rather unencyclopedic as is Checking rebellious thoughts of the crew was British Naval law. Dissent by seamen or officers within the contemporary Royal Navy was met with a brutal and energetically-pursued vigour.. There are probably other examples to look out for. I suggest getting in the Guild (requests) if you can't "see" the problem (it takes some getting used to).
  • Images: File:WagerMutiny 03.jpg needs a Template:PD-ART tag and for you to indicate where the photograph of the painting came from. File:WagerMutiny 01.jpg is clearly partly the work of Byron. Whilst you may have taken the photograph, you haven't established the copyright status of the underlying work. Make sure to keep these two things separate. It's {{PD-100}}, I think.

All in all, the article currently isn't ready for GA. There's just too much to work on here, so I'm failing the article at this juncture. Failing doesn't prejudice any future reviews, and the comments above should put you on the right track. Feel free to nominate again when they have been addressed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply