Talk:Battle of San Domingo/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) The lead and the infobox conflict as to the three smaller french ships. One says all three were frigatrs, the other says two were frigates and one was a corvette. Please clariffy this, it continues throughout the article. The difference is minimal but could be confusing to people who are unclear on naval terminology.
 * This use of terminology is fairly normal in naval histories, but I understand how it could be confusing - done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I recommend wikilinking most of the ranks. All the different grades of Admiral are somewhat confusing.
 * Done. To be honest there is little difference between the grades - all admirals were technically holding independent commands, its just that three British ones happened to combine for the battle.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) "Before the schooner had sailed, a number of French officers had commented on the risk involved in allowing the vessel to leave port, but the admiral had refused their demands that he burn the Danish ship." - Needs a ref.
 * Its the same as the one immediately above it - done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * 2) Is there any map that could be provided regarding the battle, or at least a map of the general area. It would aid in the complicated descriptions of the ship movements during the battle.
 * I'd love a map. However the only "official" and reliable account of the battle comes from Duckworth and is very vague on ship positions and their relation to the shore - its so ambiguously phrased that a number of historians have placed it 50 miles west of where it actually took place. Other sources have filled in details, but I have yet to see a reliable map.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Also, just a suggestion, but I would recommend more images on the article, just to break up the blocks of text. An image of Leissègues and/or Duckworth, for example, would be very nice.
 * Good idea, done.


 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold Once again, just a few nitpicks. They should be easy to address, and then the article is good to go. — Ed! (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good. The article now meets GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! — Ed! (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks!--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)