Talk:Action of 19 February 1801/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems a bit awkward: French Navy frigate and British Royal Navy frigate Perhaps "frigates of the French and Royal Navies" or somesuch? - rephrased
 * That only marginally better, and you've added a typo frigates of the a French Navy and British Royal Navy--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * typo: the 5 March - rephrased
 * Is a final casualty count for the French available? - yes, its listed in the lead, text and infobox.
 * Why then did Barlow think that it was understated?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood your point. No, the only published casualty account is the one in the article, but it is suspiciously round. Barlow stated in his report on the action that he thought the French casualties were higher, but no other figures were ever released.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Need publisher locations for Woodman, Wareham and Gardiner - will get to this tomorrow


 * No duplicate links
 * One DAB needs fixing - done
 * Spanish North Africa still needs to be disambiguated. It wasn't overlinked like you were apparently thinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * External links OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is this the full review or is there more to come?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done everything!--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed all links to Spanish North Africa as the link on that page I want is Ceuta anyway. I've cleaned up the typo, but I want to keep the word British where it is in the intro - all European navies of the time were Royal Navies in one way or another except the French. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The British Royal Navy just grates when the common usage is all the other "Royal Navies" use the country's name to disambiguate which exact one is meant. A legacy of British Anglophone arrogance, no doubt, but it is nonetheless true. Still need to address my point about Barlow above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you know, its quite common for British (or English) institutions not to use the word British in their titles (the Football Association is a good example) on the assumption they are the biggest, earliest or best. I'm well aware that the Royal Navy follows this trend, but I also wanted to make the article accessible to people who are unfamiliar with this situation, especially those for whom English is not a first language and whose own navies don't use the national disambiguator when translated in their own tongue (Dutch or Norwegian for example). That is why I specifically chose the formulation "British Royal Navy", linking the offical title and using British as an adjective so it was immediately clear to which nation the Navy belonged. However if you still want me to remove it I will do so. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What's next for this review?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it still bugs me, but then I read this stuff all the time. So I think your reasoning is fine, but I do think that using Navy twice in close succession is still awkward, although I'm not sure what the solution is if British is retained as both "French and British Royal Navies" and its obverse, "British Royal and French Navies" are equally bad, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not convinced by this, but I've eliminated the two navies and the word British.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to make Navy plural.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)