Talk:Battle of Île Ronde/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 08:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a 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)  16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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

, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. This article exceeds the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed. Thank you for all your great work on this article! -- West Virginian   (talk)  08:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this review, its much appreciated. I've incorporated all of your suggestions except for extending the links on Saint-Felix and Malartic - this is how all the sources present their names and I'd like to stick to established practice. I did however manage to track down Saint-Felix's full name for a (red)link.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101, thank you for your timely response and for addressing my comments and concerns. Congratulations on a job well done! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:53, 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 Battle of Île Ronde, establishes the battle's necessary context, and explains why the battle is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the battle is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The image "French frigate Cybèle and Prudente battling HMS Centurion and HMS Diomede" has been released into the public domain, and is therefore suitable for usage here in this article.
 * For the natural pause that comes after "On 22 October" in the second paragraph, it may help to have a comma here.
 * In that same sentence, I suggest de-capitalizing "Northern" in Northern Île de France.
 * I'd also suggest adding a comma after "Dutch East Indies." These are mere suggestions, however.
 * 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
 * Is there a first name for Saint-Félix, or was he just known as Saint-Félix? This isn't a deal breaker, but if a first name is available, it would be preferable to mention it here.
 * I would also suggest at least rendering Malartic as the Comte de Malartic.
 * 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
 * I also suggest wiki-linking topmast to Topmast and fore topgallant mast to Mast (sailing) for more information on these nautical terms many readers are unfamiliar with.
 * The "Combatant summary" is beautifully formatted and its contents are sourced in Clowes, p. 488. I would suggest rendering it as "" In the Clowes reference, add "|ref=harv" to the source template. This way, these two are connected for further review by the reader.
 * 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.