Talk:Action of 10 April 1795/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 16:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


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

, I have completed my thorough review and re-review of your article and I assess that it meets all the criteria necessary for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that must be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you for all your great work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 16:13, 23 February 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the naval engagement, establishes context for the naval engagement, explains why the naval engagement is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the naval engagement.
 * The info box is beautifully-formatted and its contents are sourced from internally-cited references.
 * The image of Capture of La Gloire April 10th 1795 is released into the public domain and is therefore free to use here.
 * The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Background
 * I suggest beginning the first sentence of Background with "Great Britain and France" so that it is consistent with the info box.
 * Was Brest the biggest port on the Atlantic coast of Europe, or on the Atlantic coast of France? This should be specified further.
 * This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Battle
 * I fixed the Gloire spelling in the first paragraph.
 * This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath
 * Wiki-link Isle of Wight in the first sentence of the section.
 * This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.


 * Thanks for the review! Much appreciated, --Jackyd101 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome Jackyd101! Upon my review and re-review following your additional edits, I find this article is ready to pass to Good Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)