Talk:Battle of Vizagapatam/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I did some copy editing to clear a few errors and to make it easier to read. I have just a few comments.
 * Comments
 * I think the lead should have less detail so that it is easier to read it and figure out the overall scenerio, without becoming bogged down by little issues like how many guns etc.
 * I've had a go, but I'm not sure exactly what you consider "little issues". Can you give more help?


 * Perhaps a sentence should be added to the lead to summarize the "Aftermath" section.
 * Done


 * Is there a reason that, althought Linois is meantion immediately in the lead, his ship is not named?
 * Not really, done.


 * Although you do mention "shoals" in the lead, and once in the article along with "sandbars", it would be helpful if you directly addressed the issues and described the the harbor had shoals and their importance in the battle.
 * Tried to do, let me know.


 * I think the article would benefit greatly from having a map showing where these events took place.
 * Some of the terminology is somewhat obscure fore the general reader. I tried to wikilink some but if you can wikilink a bit more, that would help.
 * Can you give me some examples?


 * In the sentence, "Centurion consequently suffered severe damage and by 13:15 had been holed ..." - What does "holed" mean?
 * It means there were holes knocked in her sides (not a good thing for a ship!). I'm not sure how to make that clearer, but I'll have a go.

All in all, it is a fascinating article and it is my lack of familiarity with the subject that made the reading difficult for me. All the issues I brought up should be easy to address.
 * It gets confusing for the general reader to sort out that Linois was French, and Lind was British, etc. I had to read through the article several times, and it was only by copy editing it that I finally figure out the situation. Anything you can do to help orient the reader would improve the article.
 * Again, can you give me some examples?


 * I noticed that you used Linois's instead of Linois' for the possessive. The latter may be preferable.
 * Originally I used Linois', but was told off - apparently Linois's is the correct form (it's a French thing).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I'll get on this stuff over the next couple of days.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a go, let me know if it is closer to what you want. Thanks again, --Jackyd101 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally the lead follows the structure of the article, with a summary of each section. This makes the article easier to follow. However, this article is so well written that I am not going to worry about that. Otherwise, you have addressed my concerns! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

A wonderful article. Congratulations!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Very well written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS guidelines
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers the broad aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Neutral
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.: Stable
 * 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: Pass
 * 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: Pass
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)