Talk:Siege of Pondicherry (1793)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101, 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 in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I've done most of these, although I skipped two - explanations below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101, thank you again for your timely response to my review and comments below. I've re-reviewed the article and find that you gave sufficiently incorporated the majority of my suggestions. As for the colonies comment, I was trying to explain that the places mentioned were not their own individually-governed colonies, but a collection of places under colonial rule from Pondicherry. As it stands, the writing still works, I just thought the nomenclature could be modified. Great work, and congratulations on another job well done! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jackyd101, as promised, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article. I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status, but I did have a few comments and suggestions that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thanks again for all your hard work on this one! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Siege of Pondicherry, establishes the siege's necessary context, and explains why the siege is otherwise notable.
The info box for the siege is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
The image of the French map depicting the 1778 Siege of Pondicherry has been released into the public domain, and is therefore suitable for usage here in this article.
The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background

I suggest adding a comma after the natural pause following "In the 1790s"

Reads better to me the way it is, hope thats OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Siege of Pondicherry

In the first paragraph, I wonder if it may read better rendered as "Upon investigation, however, this ship proved to be..."
A comma could be added after "On 28 July" in the second paragraph.
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Aftermath

Would it read better this way at the beginning of the first paragraph? "British losses of 88 killed and 131 wounded during the siege were relatively heavy;"
Since the place names mentioned weren't individual "French colonies" per se, but were "colonial possessions" of France on the Indian subcontinent, I wonder if it may be more appropriate to refer to them as colonial possessions rather than colonies. Again, this is merely a suggestion.

I'm not sure what the difference is, can you clarify?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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