Talk:Alexander Wilson (Royal Navy officer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Who could not be tempted by an article about an Alexander that commanded the Alexander and Alexandria. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 100% of authorship is by Pickersgill-Cunliffe. It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Excellent work on this. Please see my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The text is clear and concise.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
 * The article is of appropriate length, 1,464 words of readable prose.
 * The lead is of appropriate length at 174 words.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced perspective.
 * There are a few instances where a comma could potentially ease reading. Examples include the following subclauses:
 * "After the American Revolutionary War came to a close, Wilson continued in the Royal Navy"
 * Done.
 * "When Pellew was given command of the 36-gun frigate HMS Nymphe, he requested that Wilson become his first lieutenant"
 * Done.
 * "At the start of the French Revolutionary War in 1793, Hood was given the 100-gun ship of the line HMS Royal George as his flagship in the English Channel"
 * Done.
 * I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 11.5% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely.
 * Citations seem to be thorough.
 * References appear to be from reputable sources.
 * All accessible sources are live.
 * Spot checks identified that the page references in Winfield 2007 are not the same in the web-accessible version[] as in the article. For example, his service with HMS Alexander (1778) is mentioned on page 78 not 218, HMS Kingfisher (1782) on page 314 not 788. Page 233, rather than 598, lists those who commanded HMS Boreas (1774) and there is no mention of Wilson.
 * My Winfield is an e-book version in PDF form, which is formatted differently to the version you link. I've updated the ISBN to the correct version. The Boreas command is not mentioned in Winfield, I am using the source there for Boreas being in ordinary. The United Service Magazine is the source for Boreas herself.
 * The image is appropriate and relevant.
 * The image has appropriate licensing and public domain tags.
 * Ideally, it would be good to have an image in the infobox. I suggest the one of HMS Trusty (1782), and in the caption mentioning Wilson's participation in the Battle of Abukir.
 * Have serious doubts that the image on Trusty's page is actually of the ship. Compare it with the plans for Trusty here, which to my eye show a completely different ship. The image looks more like a frigate than a two-decker of any type imo.
 * Fair enough.
 * Hi, thanks for the review! Have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I will start my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Excellent work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. Pass  simongraham (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)