Talk:John Walter Roberts/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Lead
 * served as a junior officer in the English Channel...: suggest "served as a junior officer on ships in the"
 * Added.


 * captured the pirate Zaragozana.: suggest "captured the pirate ship Zaragozana." I was wondering who Zaragozana was and why his name was italicised until I clicked on the link!
 * Added.

Military career

Junior officer
 * to India to take up post as...: suggest "to India to take up his post as"
 * Added.


 * serving with Capel off: who/what is Capel? or is Endymion meant? (Doing spot checks on sourcing I see that Capel was commander of Endymion, so that needs to be added for antecedence)
 * Remnant of a previous rendition in which I named most of the commanders of the ships Roberts served in. Removed for consistency.


 * I can't recall if it is a thing for you or not, but the cites for the final paragraph are in reverse order
 * Switched.

Command
 * Having walked inland about 50 miles (80 km) by 22 February, ... and chose to return to Shearwater, arriving back on the following day.: can I have a fact check on this; as I read this, I make the "following day" 23 Feb) so this means they walked 80km in a day? Also delete the italicised 'on'
 * Double checked, and this should read 23 February: "Feb. 23rd. We still travelled forward, being now afraid to stop lest we should he affected with cramp. At daylight we arrived on the seacoast. In a few hours after we came in sight of the ship, and arrived on board about seven a.m. quite knocked up, having travelled these last twenty-four hours, with scarcely any rest, upwards of fifty miles."


 * The lead mentions a promotion to post-captain, but that is not mentioned here. The links for this rank and captain are distinct from each other, so should this distinction be carried through here?
 * Changed.

Personal
 * The couple went on to have children together.: is there a missing number there?
 * Nope! Source only says "they had issue".

Other stuff
 * Sources look reliable albeit some quite dated
 * Spot checks of sources (O'Byrne) (Marshall 1830)
 * No dupe links
 * Image tags OK

That's my comments done for now. Zawed (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reviewing this. My comments are above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm happy with this, passing as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)