Talk:Raid on Batavia (1806)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 'The departure of Linois after three years of operations in eastern waters freed Pellew's small squadron based at Madras for operations against the Dutch East Indies and especially the island of Java, where the principal Dutch squadron and their base at Batavia were located' - Overly long sentence that needs to be cut into two.
 * Done


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 'Rear-Admiral Hartsink seeking to divide his forces in preparation for the coming British attack.' - Do we have any idea why he did this, instead of concentrating his forces against Pellew?
 * The sources do not specify, but it is clear from the context that he did it because his ships were weak and old and sttod no chance against Pellew's force and he sought to preserve them as long as possible. Had a go.
 * The sources do not specify, but it is clear from the context that he did it because his ships were weak and old and sttod no chance against Pellew's force and he sought to preserve them as long as possible. Had a go.


 * 'Although now useless as a ship, Phoenix's guns were turned on the other beached vessels as boats spread out to board and burn them' - This is confusing; why would the boats be bombarded and then boarded? Can this be clarified perhaps?
 * Done


 * 'The captured William was found to be in such a poor state of repair that it was not worth keeping the corvette and Admiral Pellew ordered the ship burnt, noting in his official report that Lieutenant Owen, who would otherwise have been placed in command, should be recompensed with another command as reward for his services in the engagement.' - Now, why would this be? According to the previous section, it was Terpischord under Pellew junior that captured William.
 * Done


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think there needs to be something at the beginning of the article, explaining the threat the Dutch posed to British convoys, giving context to the raid; although it's mentioned in the lead, it isn't in the actual text.
 * I think the first paragraph of Background covers this doen't it? Or have I misunderstood you?
 * My fault; I think it needs context as to why British ships are attacking Dutch ships, as there's no direct linking the Dutch and the French. Something about the Dutch being a client state of France would solve that.
 * Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 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, 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

And once again, a short but sweet article; just a few points to clarify, and then I'l be happy to pass it as a Good Article! Skinny87 (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great review, thanks very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, well everything seems good to me now, so I'll pass this. Skinny87 (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)