Talk:East Indies theatre of the French Revolutionary Wars/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Please use either BrE or AmE
 * Its supposed to be BrE, but its possible a spellcheck error or two crept in. I can't find them though, can you let me know were this is a problem?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "traveled" and "defense".--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed myself.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Duplicate links to French Revolution, Dutch Cape Colony, Penang, HMS Victorious, HMS Arrogant, HMS Sybille, HMS Fox, HMS Sceptre, Houghly River, HMS Jupiter, and HMS Tremendous.
 * Ok, I've eliminated the second on French Revolution, which was an error. However, the rest of these are relatively obscure links which appear in very different sections and I think that a reader would prefer to have these links where they are. As far as I understand it, the overlinking rules are guidelines subject to editor discretion rather than definitive instructions, and I'd prefer to leave these as they are.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Split the first paragraph in the lead.
 * Remove the location parameter in an image if it says "right".
 * I've done this, but I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary. What was harmed by leaving the "rights" in place?


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Citation #115 should be a note
 * Its debateable, but in every other article I've used this metric, including some featured articles, this has gone in the references (as its a reference to a source rather than commentary). I'd rather keep it where it is.


 * Sources #4 and #7 in the bibliography should have the "ref=harv" parameter removed
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * First two images in article lack U.S PD tags
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I've left a number of comments and questions - if I haven't queried the point, its been addressed. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)