Talk:Macau Incident (1799)/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in another thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Done all except the 1799 comma and the "China Fleet". The latter because "China Fleet" is actually quite a misleading title without explanation and I didn't want to take up space in the lead with a small bit of terminological minutiae. Much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101, thank you once again for your thoughtful and timely response to my comments and suggestions. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Thanks for all your hard work on this article. -- West Virginian   (talk)  23:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, I've completed a thorough, thoughtful, and comprehensive review and re-review of this article and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before it passes, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed first. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Macau Incident in 1799, establishes the incident's necessary context, and explains why the incident is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the invasion is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The image of the map of the Pearl River delta has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for inclusion in this article.
 * In the first paragraph, I would add a comma after "By early 1799"
 * I would restate as "year's convoy from China..." Perhaps also named it as the "China Fleet," as it was known.
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background
 * I suggestion mentioning the present-day place names for Île de France (Mauritius) and Batavia (Jakarta).
 * Capitalize "the" at the beginning of the final sentence of the final paragraph.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Encounter at Macau
 * Should this section be titled "Incident at Macau" to make it consistent with the article title? This is merely a suggestion, of course.
 * In the second paragraph, I would capitalize Spanish in "Franco-spanish"
 * I would refer to the Wanshan consistently as "Wanshan Archipelago" throughout the article.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Aftermath
 * Rather than "wrote later," I suggest stating that he "assessed"
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.