Talk:French expedition to Ireland (1796)/GA1

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

GA review of this version: Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead, P2, S1: I don't like the phrase "in memory" in the lead. (Whose memory, any way?) The weather is actually discussed twice in the paragraph. Perhaps you could take the later 'worst-since-1708' mention and integrate that phrase here instead?
 * Changed to "of the eighteenth century".--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Departure, P4, S6: Using the word telegraph here could be confusing with telegraphy. How about dispatched (despatched in UK?)
 * I'd forgotten, but this came up on the talk page for Action of 13 January 1797, when a reviwer insisted that telegraphy was a later invention. However, after some deeper research it emerged that the correct link was to an early form of telegraph system: Semaphore line. I'll change it in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The other reviewer was conflating telegraphy with electric telegraphy, which is understandable. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In Voyage to "Collapse of the expedition", P2, Suffren is captured (and, the sentence notes, recaptured later). In "Retreat", P3, Suffren is recaptured (presumably the previously noted recapturing). How and when did Suffren escape? Or was she released? Or…?
 * Thought I'd explained this, but apparently not. It should be clearer now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is now. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made changes for several minor spelling and punctuation issues, and also shortened a few sentences. I hope that you will take a look at the changes (diff) and make sure that the latter changes do not change the meaning.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I converted the "Notes" section to a single column layout. Previously (on my system, at least) the one discursive note was awkwardly split.
 * Just as an FYI, in there's an   parameter designed for works that have been reprinted. Using it allows the format to match other articles on Wikipedia. I've added it to the works in the Bibliography (I also did this on Action of 10 February 1809)
 * I'd recommend adding the location to the works in the Bibliography that don't already have it before pursuing higher (A-Class, FA) assessments
 * I'll work on this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend adding the location to the works in the Bibliography that don't already have it before pursuing higher (A-Class, FA) assessments
 * I'll work on this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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, 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Just the three prose issues above keep this from passing on first reading. The article covers an event that I'd never heard of before, so it was interesting reading. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed them, thankyou very much for the review and I'm glad you enjoyed it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)