Talk:Lamellerie's expedition/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * "astonishing, given the weakness of the opposition and [the strength of his] own combined force", -needs a ref, since the rest of the sentence refers to a separate work, both should be cited.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) Under normal circumstances I wouldn't hold an article for lack of images, but I feel that there are plenty of potential images for this one. Any of the major people, ships, or locations involved can surely be illustrated on the article.
 * I would love to have an image for this, but unfortunately I have been unable to locate one of either the events, ships or men involved. I know there is an image of Hydra capturing Babet at the National Maritime Museum, but unfortunately it has not been put online yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Something is wrong with the Order of Battle table. The bottom "source" cell seems to be disrupting the whole table. This should be fixed.
 * It looks fine to me, what seems to be the problem?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question; it seems to have corrected itself so I'm going to assume the problem is with my computer. — Ed! (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Is there any kind of infobox that we can use for this kind of article?
 * The only one that srpings to mind - the military conflict one - doesn't really apply here as there was no concerted British response to the operation and thus it would be overbalanced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold for a few minor issues. 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some replies and am awaiting your feedback. Many thanks for looking at the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good, they are addressed to my satisfaction. The article now meets the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done. — Ed! (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)