Talk:Gravesend Blockhouse

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 19:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this review in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Hchc2009, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the blockhouse, establishes the blockhouse's necessary context, and explains why the blockhouse is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image of the foundations of the Gravesend Blockhouse is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• The Kent locator map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is also acceptable for use here.
• Consider wiki-linking "Dutch navy" to Naval history of the Netherlands.
• I suggest making it clear in the lede that the initial invasion Henry feared was from France and the Holy Roman Empire specifically.
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background

• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Device of 1539

• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Construction

• The image of the blockhouse plan is licensed CC0 and is therefore free to use in this section.
• I suggest splitting the first paragraph so that the discussion of the planning and construction are in one, and the specifications and measurements are in another.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Use in the 16th century

• So that it is consistent with the subsequent sections, I recommend renaming this section "16th century."
• The image of the engraving from 1588 has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link Tower of London here in its first usage within the article.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

17th century

• The image of the blockhouse in the 17th century has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• For consistency's sake, I would name the monarch Charles II in its first usage with a wiki link to his article, rather than refer to him as King Charles. Charles I and James I were referred as such above.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

18th - 19th centuries

• I would suggest adding a "–" dash between 18th and 19th centuries.
• The image of Sir Thomas Page has been released into the Public Domain and is suitable for use here.
• Perhaps consider rewording the last sentence of this section as "The blockhouse building was subsequently demolished in 1844."
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

20th - 21st centuries

• As stated above, I would suggest adding a "–" dash between 20th and 21st centuries.
• Is the UK law being referred to here, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979? If so, it should be mentioned by name.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

Cheers! All the changes should now be made, other than the link to the UK laws; I'm uncertain which act was used in the 1979 decision (there are previous ones), but the schedule monument link gives some background to this. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009, thank you for addressing these comments. I appreciate all your great work on this and other articles, and it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)