Talk:HMS Resistance (1782)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

After the thorough review that was undertaken by the author of a GA nomination of mine, I thought I would return the favour. I will start an assessment shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The six good article criteria:
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * This article was created on 4 January 2022 and is currently ranked B class.
 * 99.9% of authorship is by Pickersgill-Cunliffe.
 * The article is of reasonable length with 3,553 words of readable prose, plus a table of prizes and an infobox.
 * The infobox and main text are illustrated by relevant images. Although not a GA criterion, I suggest adding ALT tags following MOS:ALT as this is considered good practice.
 * It is noted that the image "The Argo with a Russian ship passing through the straits.jpg" is suggested for transfer to Wikipedia Commons. I suggest taking a look at this and seeing if it can be actioned.
 * There are substantial notes which are separately referenced. simongraham (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Review
GA1
 * "then went for a refit at Jamaica," should be "then went for a refit in Jamaica".


 * Consider adding a comma to "as the rearmost ship began to sail away she lost her mainmast" so that it reads "as the rearmost ship began to sail away, she lost her mainmast".


 * "Having returned to Portsmouth some time after this". Please clarify "some time".
 * There is no date provided for her return. I have removed this part.


 * Please correct "Philipines" to " Philippines", "sea bed" to "seabed" and "slavey" to"slavery".


 * I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

GA2
 * References are from reliable sources.
 * There is the occasional risk of WP:CITEKILL . For example, "Early in the afternoon of 8 March a landing party captured the island after a short defence by the Dutch garrison forces there." is followed by four references. Are all these necessary?
 * Removed the Winfield reference, which just repeated what the others already provided.


 * The ISBN format is inconsistent. Recommend making them all fit one format.
 * Have made an attempt but am unsure if that was the kind of inconsistency you're describing.


 * Suggest adding OCLC numbers to the 19th Century references (e.g. Brenton, 1837).
 * Could not find correct OCLC numbers for three references but did the others. Am not an expert on this, please say if I've missed something.


 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector states there is a 9.1% likelihood of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely.

GA3
 * Main aspects are covered.
 * The topic is covered in detail.

GA4
 * There is a lack of the voice of non-Europeans. For example, the note to the statement "to which the local population resisted" only posits Dutch motivations. Did the "local population" include non-Europeans? If so, what were their motives for resistance?
 * Have reworded this sentence. The attack seems to have mostly been undertaken by the local Timor-men, but it is only couched in terms of how and why the Dutch commanded or persuaded them to do so.


 * Otherwise, the topic is generally covered neutrally, particularly the fate of the ship.

GA5
 * There is no evidence of edit wars or content disputes. In fact, this is a very stable page.

GA6
 * Images are relevant and have appropriate public domain tags.

Please take a look at the above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, I have responded to all your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that while investigating if there were any more sources on the Kupang attack I found some information relating to Resistance's earlier operations which I have now added in. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I feel that the additions have addressed the issues, but I am particularly pleased that you have adjusted the wikilinks in the rest of the article to avoid overlinking. It is a shame we know so little about the conflict in Timor from a non-European perspective but I suppose that is one of the limitations of the literature available. I find worldcat.org an excellent source for bibliographical details, including ISBN and OCLC numbers for the various editions of publications. However, even this is incomplete. Please take a look at what is available there and come back to me if you need any help. simongraham (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Having used worldcat for the extant OCLCs in the article, I can't find the numbers for the remaining three references there. While other editions of the books are present, I don't believe the ones that I have used are. Do you have any suggestions? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that looks very good. I'm happy to complete the review now. simongraham (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. This passes as a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)