Talk:Battle off Texel/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Expand the lead a bit more - give some context, some information about why the forces were in the area and some indication of casualties and strategic effects. Aim for two paragraphs.
 * "great moral boost" - do you mean "morale"?


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * For the record, are the references at the ends of paragraphs intended to cover the entire paragraph? If facts within the paragraphs come from more than one source then I suggest using more than one reference tag to demonstrate the fact.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Can you add some mention of the different armaments present: did the British ships comprehensively outgun the German ones?
 * "Upon closer approach the German vessels recognized their error" - You haven't given an explicit error - I assume you mean that they did not flee from the british approach, but this isn't explained either. Did they mistake the British ships for German ones?


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * Reduce the number of reference columns to two - even on my wide browser they are almost impossible to read.
 * Link things in the main body of the text even if they have already been linked in the lead (e.g. Texel)
 * I'd give a hatnote indicating the existence of the other Battle of Texel.

Good work. There are a couple of additional issues however - 1) "causing further damage to the Germans long after the action had ended" - can you be more specific about what kind of damage? 2) You don't need to link things like destroyer and torpedo over and over again. Link the first instance only, excluding the lead, infobox and image captions. 3) Make sure that all references come after punctuation. Once these issues are dealt with the article will be ready to pass.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job, the article has now passed GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)