Talk:HMS Brilliant (1757)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 22:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I'll be reviewing this article. Looks almost up to GA quality. Just a few issues:
 * General:
 * Expand the article if possible.
 * Good suggestion, but I doubt there's much more to be found. This ship was an interesting innovation in frigate design but it represented a fixed point on a developing continuum. Its privateer-hunting career was also unremarkable (and fairly unremarked upon) at the time. I do have some additional newspaper references, but they are essentially duplicative of the existing text.
 * Any pictures for the Infobox?
 * Best I have is a representative schematic of the hull, but the quality is low and I doubt it would be of use in understanding much about the ship. Unfortunately the images in the article all have her obscured by other vessels, otherwise I could crop and enlarge one of these. Views welcome on whether this is worth pursuing.
 * References
 * The first paragraph of the section "Privateer hunter" is unreferenced
 * ✅ - fixed. The Winfield ref covers the context of launch. I've also removed the duplicated ref in the second paragraph - the entire thing is sourced from the same edition of the London Gazette. If you feel it worthwhile I can add additional refs for this paragraph, but they are essentially reprints of the Gazette in other media and most are subscription-only.
 * Try to include location of the publisher for all the references if possible.
 * ✅ - done.
 * Put citations after punctuation where possible.(suggestion only)
 * ✅ - done.
 * Lots of the links have subscription issues. Are there any other substitute free links? If not, note that in the reference. They are listed in checklinks.
 * ✅ - alas no free alternative. The British Newspaper Archive is a great resource but it is entirely subscription and I'm not aware of any free repository of these digitized assets. There are free subscriptions available via the Wikipedia library, but for purposes of this review I have added the subscription tags where applicable.
 * Prose
 * Link Venus-class frigate in body.
 * ✅ - done, though it was already linked in the lead?
 * Link Thomas Slade, pinnace, and frigate, as well.
 * ✅ - done.
 * Disrepancy: In the Infobox it stated that the three types of boats used were longboats, cutters, and yawns, while in the body it states that three types were pinnaces, cutters, and yawns.
 * ✅ - done, thanks for highlighting this as it revealed I'd made a transposition error in the lengths. There's also some confusion in the sources - the ship's establishment was a longboat, pinnace and yawl but a Navy Board letter from a decade later said the Venus-class carried a longboat, pinnace and cutter. On balance I think the Navy Board letter is wrong (no other frigates carried cutters at this time), but I've noted the alternative in the footnotes.


 * hi, sorry for the delayed response, I forgot to watchlist this page. Will come back ASAP with responses to the above. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * also pinging your main account. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. Hopefully the points raised have been addressed but please let me know if I've missed anything or if there are other things that need a look through. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)