Talk:Childers Incident/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked over this at DYK, then realized it was a GAN as well, so I guess I'll take on the review here, too! Full comments shortly... Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead, "the scene of a significant mutiny in 1790." Do we have an article for this mutiny?
 * Not yet . ..
 * Lead, "48 lb" - conversion?
 * Done, although I couldn't make the template look neat so I put the conversion in text.
 * Background, "French Revolution on 1789" of/in 1789?
 * A lot of uses of "however" overall. Some of these seem a little unnecessary, especially when combined with other "nevertheless"s, "despite"s, etc. Maybe take a look through and see what you think?
 * You're right, I used that word much too often.
 * Childers Incident, 48lber/4lber - are these formulations general usage? I think I've always seen them before with the number spelled out (so four-pounder, etc).
 * That usage is common in the texts I've used to source this, although I've compromised with 48-pounder/4-pounder to minimise confusion.
 * Aftermath, "Europe Childers and her captain" Should Childers be italicized here?
 * Its a quote and the name isn't italicised in the original text, so probably not.
 * Aftermath - what was the response of the British government to Barlow showing up with his cannonball? I see what the historians thought, but the article doesn't really make it clear how "it marked a significant moment in the deterioration of relations" - at least on the part of the government. The way the article is currently worded makes it seem like the execution of Louis XVI was the main cause for the declaration of war, which doesn't jive with the last sentence of the lead. Do all historians agree that the Childers Incident marked the first shots of the war, although war hadn't officially been declared yet?
 * This is a good point, and I think I've been guilty of inadvertently overstating the event's importance. None of the sources record a reaction by the British government, and I expect that they avoided making a statement - before 21 January it was still hoped that war might be avoided. All the sources I have consulted however note this incident as the first shots of British involvement in the French Revolutionary Wars and relay the event as a sign of the growing hostility between Britain and France. I've changed significant to symbolic - does that help? --Jackyd101 (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * See final comment in prose section. The article makes a rather large jump from the Childers Incident to the war, without taking the reader through the thought process of the government that turned it from a minor international incident to the first shots of a 20+ year war.
 * 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:
 * Overall, very nice. A few minor prose niggles and a minor question about focus. Once these are addressed, the article should be good to go for GA status. Placing the review on hold for now. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - I've made some changes and replied as above. Regards
 * Everything looks good, so I'm promoting the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, very nice. A few minor prose niggles and a minor question about focus. Once these are addressed, the article should be good to go for GA status. Placing the review on hold for now. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - I've made some changes and replied as above. Regards
 * Everything looks good, so I'm promoting the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)