Talk:Christopher Cradock/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, this article is in pretty good shape. I have the following comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * in the Early life section, suggest adding the date of birth to the first sentence
 * He entered the Royal Navy's cadet ship --> "He joined the Royal Navy's cadet training ship"?
 * This is one of those quirky Britishisms that are so annoying for a general audience. The formal phrase is actually "entered Britannia on", which I pointlessly tried to keep partially intact, but your phrasing is much more suitable.
 * do we know where he went to school before joining the Navy?
 * Not specifically.
 * and was then assigned to the naval brigade in 1884 which had --> "and in 1884 was assigned to the naval brigade which had..."
 * when arrived in the Red Sea shortly... --> "which arrived in the Red Sea shortly..."
 * are endeavoring to break --> does the source use "endeavoring", or should it be "endeavouring"?
 * A monument to Admiral Cradock --> "A monument to Cradock"?
 * A monument to Admiral Cradock was placed in York Minster: do we know what year this took place?
 * Citation # 1, probably best to use straight quote marks, and I would suggest embedding the url so that it is piped through the article title
 * corvette, Spithead, light cruiser, and Port Stanley are overlinked
 * in the Bibliography, "HMS ESSEX" should be "HMS Essex" per MOS:ALLCAPS and I suggest adding an endash
 * in the Further reading section, is there a publisher for the 1894 work?
 * the External links section is empty, so the template should be moved to the last section and the External link header deleted
 * is the Webster source a reliable source?
 * It's a link to a picture that he uploaded, so that's not really relevant.
 * the two ship images might look better if they were left aligned, as that would then face into the article. If you do this, I'd suggest right aligning the memorial image
 * "Corbet, p. 309" --> "Corbett, p. 309"
 * "File:Rear-Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock.jpg": does the underlying work have a copyright status to be considered here? I assume the guidance here applies:, so potentially it needs a FoP-UK tag. Thoughts?
 * I think that I was so relieved to finish this one that I didn't even review the images. But you're correct and I've added a FoP tag.
 * "File:HMS Hibernia (1905) with aircraft and ramp.jpg": potentially doesn't need the PD-US tag if the Crown Copyright tag is accurate, given that it applies worldwide
 * Replaced the crappy pic with a better one with the appropriate license. Thanks for your thorough review, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Your changes look good. Thanks for your efforts with this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: ✅


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.