Talk:Persian Gulf campaign of 1809/GA1

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

Hi. I am reviewing your article for GA and will be putting my comments below, as I go through the article. The article looks very interesting and initially I don't see any major problems. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "was despatched to the region following an escalation in pirate attacks on British shipping in the Persian Gulf after the arrival of French diplomatic missions in Muscat and Tehran in 1807." - I am not clear what the connection is between the escalation of the pirate attacks  and arrival of French diplomatic missions.
 * As mentioned, Britain and France were in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, and thus the French encouraged attacks on British shipping by the Persian Gulf pirates. This is explained in the text, do you think I need to explain it fully in the lead as well?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "but the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars in 1803 diverted much of the British strength in the Indian Ocean against the Dutch colonies of the Cape of Good Hope and Java and the French bases on Île Bonaparte and Île de France" - do you mean that the British strength in the Indian Ocean was diverted to the Dutch colonies of the Cape of Good Hope....? - in other words - from the Indian Ocean to the Dutch colonies...?
 * The Dutch colonies are in the Indian Ocean. The point is that the ships were diverted away from the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. I will try to clarify this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that all the paragraphs are approximately the same size is monotonous. Is there a way you can vary the size for more impact?
 * Also, you tend to use the same sentence structure over and over, for example:"The campaign did however have a significant effect on British cartography of the region, Wainwright reporting that the available charts of the Persian Gulf were inaccurate or incomplete..." - the phrase "Wainwright reporting" is a construction you have repeated overly, sometimes in several sentences in a paragraph. I have changed some of them, but I would urge you to vary sentence construction. Like paragraph size, repeating the samve sentence construction over and over is monotonous.

I will add more comments, if necessary, once you respond. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will put this article on hold for now. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realise the review was finished. I'll deal with this tonight, thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! The review isn't finished, although I know there are no significant problems. I just needed a response from you before spending more time on it. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through it again, and don't have any more comments. The article give a little window into what was happening during that time. Very good. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some of the amendments above, and thankyou for your copyedit. Is the paragraphs thing still a problem? You copyedit seems to have cleared up the problems with sentence and paragraph structure.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I copyedited a few more small things. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Passes GA. A nice little article. Congradulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Adequate references b (citations to reliable sources): References are reliable  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the overall context b (focused): Remains focused on article subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thanksyou very much for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)