Talk:Action of 9 February 1799 (South Africa)/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in another 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)  16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done them all except Malartic (sorry, I'm sticking with the sources) and the comma after 1799 (which scans better for me). Hope thats all OK--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101, as I stated in my comments below, these were merely just suggestions, so I appreciate your timely response, and your incorporation of some of my other comments and suggestions. Congratulations on yet another job well done. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian   (talk)  21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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

, I've finished a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. I find that it definitely meets 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 your research and for the well-crafted article! -- West Virginian   (talk)  16:51, 18 June 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 adequately defines the naval engagement, establishes the naval engagement's necessary context, and explains why the naval engagement is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the naval engagement is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * It's a pity there is no free or fair use image for this template, but it certainly is not a deal breaker for Good Article status.
 * (Mauritius) should be rendered as such following Île de France in the first paragraph of the lede.
 * Again, would it be possible to refer to the governor as Comte de Malartic?
 * I'd add a comma after "In early 1799" in the lede's second paragraph.
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background
 * Again, (Mauritius) should be rendered as such following Île de France in the first paragraph of the lede.
 * In the second paragraph, I suggest adding a comma for the pause after "When these ships returned"
 * And you know my feelings on the rendering of Comte de Malartic ;) Again, this is merely a suggestion and is not a deal breaker of sorts.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Battle
 * In the first paragraph, it should be made explicit to remind the reader that the privateer being mention is the Prudente
 * I'm assuming "to and from the South African port." refers to Cape Town? If so, this should be stated as such, even though it can be assumed by the reader.
 * I would suggest wiki-linking "mizenmast" to Mast (sailing).
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

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