Talk:James Walker (Royal Navy officer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * no dabs found by the tools.
 * ext links all work;
 * most images lack alt text. It is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in;
 * the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in the lead, I think there is a word missing here: "and he duly invested as a" (perhaps try "and he was duly invested as a");
 * in the lead, there is some repetition here: "and after commanding several ships after the" (the word "after" - perhaps reword?);
 * I think "lieutenant" should be wikilinked on first mention;
 * in the Years of peace section, "The robbers took 800l of money" - I'm not familiar with this abbreviation - what does it mean? Could it perhaps be linked?
 * in the Years of peace section, "He left her in February 1792" (coming straight after "Richard Fisher" this could confuse readers as to what "her" refers to. I suggest replacing "her" with Winchelsea);
 * in the Promotion and temporary commands section, this sentence probably needs a citation: "Having escorted the merchants to the designated point he received news that a fleet of 36 English merchants were assembled at Cadiz, in need of an escort";
 * in the Promotion and temporary commands section, "one of the repeating ships" - is there a link that could be added to explain repeating ships?
 * in the Promotion and temporary commands section, "Having escorted the merchants" (in this case I take it that "merchants" is a type of ship, but the casual reader will probably think its a person who works as a merchant - perhaps link to an appropriate article?);
 * I suggest wikilinking "commander" (rank) on first mention;
 * I'm not sure what this means: "besieged by the black forces of generals" (specifically, what is a black force? - can it be linked or explained?);
 * this needs tweaking as it doesn't quite flow: "and were taken off in order to save from the vengeance of the besieging forces" (perhaps try "in order to be saved from"?);
 * in the Convoys section, "She arrived in England without incident" (because of the distance between "she" and the ship's name in the previous sentence, it is unclear to the casual reader what "she" actually means. I suggest tweaking this sentence to: "Nevertheless, Duquesne arrived in England without incident...";
 * in the Portuguese service section, "He was transferred to the 74-gun" - I suggest tweaking this to begin with the date, for instance: "In October 1807, Walker was transferred to the...";
 * in the Portuguese service section, "While there the decision was made to evacuate the Portuguese Royal Family to Brazil" - why? (Perhaps add a brief clause on why this was needed);
 * in the Royalty, and the Americas section: "On Walker's returned to Britain he asked for, and received orders to join" (I think a paired comma is required after "received");
 * in the Royalty, and the Americas section: "After being repaired she joined Admiral William Young" (to what does "she" refer to here? I think it is Bedford, but you've not mentioned the ship's name since the top part of the previous section. I suggest rewording as such: "Still in command of Bedford, he took part in the blockade of Flushing...");
 * in the Later years section: "He had been nominated a Companion of the Bath on 4 June 1815" (perhaps reword to "He was nominated...");
 * inconsistent caps: Who's who in Nelson's Navy v. Who's Who in Nelson's Navy (suggest the second, per WP:MOSCAPS;


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * generally covers the topic quite well, however, in the Family and early life section, do we know where Walker went to school? If so, it would be good to mention it (even just a short sentence or a clause). If the sources don't provide this information, then don't worry about it;


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues that I could find.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Looks stable.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * it is not really relevant to this review as the image is undoubtedly in the public domain, but "File:Thomas-Whitcombe-Battle-of-Camperdown.jpg" needs source information. If you want to take the article higher, you might be asked to add it in.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, a good article in my opinion. I have added some prose suggestions and I think these should be looked at/discussed before promotion, but otherwise its up to standard. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made the suggested changes and fixes, the only issue being the matter of where he went to school, none of the sources mention this, which is not particularly unusual in my experience for this period. Benea (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, you can only include what the sources say. I've passed the article now. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)