Talk:Action of 1 August 1801/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian  Paul  03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here it is:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, very nice. Some comments though:
 * 1) The immediate issue that I encounter is that is the "Background" section doesn't cover some very specific facts - namely, what conflict the action was a part of and what the sides were. You start talking about Commodore Dale, but the reader doesn't know what country he's from or why he's blockading a port! Then I realized that this information is only mentioned in the introduction, which I always read last in a review. Anyways, per WP:LEAD, there should not be any information introduced in the lead that is not present in the body of the article. Please contextualize the article in the "Background" section and ensure that everything in the lead is presented and cited in the body.
 * I added a sentence to the background section that takes care of tese issues.XavierGreen (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The last sentence of "Aftermath" - "the Dey was no closer to accepting the American terms and besides the Enterprise's victory over the Tripoli and the war continued on." - Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like there's something wrong with this portion of the sentence; I guess I don't get the "and besides the Enterprise's victory over the Tripoli" part.
 * I change the wording to make the sentence more clear.XavierGreen (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  02:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I believe that the article meets the GA criteria, so I will be passing it as a Good Article now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)