Talk:Action of 27 June 1798/GA1

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 'but despite an extensive search Foote was unable to relay the information to Nelson before the Battle of the Nile on 1 August.' - Would this be about the location of the convoy? If so, it would be best to clarify that. Also, I assume you mean he searched for Nelson, but couldn't find him? Clarification again would be good.
 * 'Much of this was auctioned off, while other treasures were to be transported to France, along with men wounded during the invasion and dispatches carried by General Louis Baraguey d'Hilliers' - I would mention here that d'Hilliers was wounded, as it's mentioned in the lede.
 * 'The storm had also detached the squadron's frigates,' - I don't think 'detached' is the correct phrasing here, as the storm didn't command them :)
 * 'to be joined by additional forces from Genoa, Corsica and Civitavecchia it passed south through the Ligurian Sea' - 'as it passed', only a minor thing.
 * 'Among the goods seized from the frigate were the complete French code books' - Code books for what? A part of the military, or all of it? Or did it contain diplomatic codes as well?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Is there a wikilink anywhere we can add for the French invasion of Malta?
 * The best account of it on Wikipedia (though I say so myself), is at Mediterranean campaign of 1798, which is already linked. I didn't have enough material to write a whole article on it, although with the right reference materials I expect one could be drawn up.


 * Just curious, any idea what happened to Foote or his First Lieutenant?
 * Foote has his own article, from which I incorporated some information about his service in the following year. I have no further information about Lieutenant Wilmot I'm afraid.


 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

An excellent article, with very little to do - but then that describes all of your article, Jacky. Look forward to passing it, and excellent reading as usual. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the reivew. I always appreciate your reviews, you leave thoughtful comments and questions that never fail to improve the article, and your input is always greatly appreciated. I have addressed all of the points above except those at which I have left replies. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Looks good, no problems with promoting this. Skinny87 (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)