Talk:Red Dragon (1595)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I will get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No bullet points in infobox as per WP:SHIPS MOS
 * Rework these sentences; I think that you can just adjust the punctuation to make it flow better: In the 1590s, the Earl of Cumberland's passion for nautical adventure was at its peak. He lacked a vessel able to support his hired fleet; the only option he had to get a sufficiently armed vessel was to borrow from the Queen, something which would give her significant control over his actions.
 * Why are you citing every sentence in the Raiding the Spanish Main section, but don't do the same thing in the East India Company section?
 * These are also confusing: He returned, leaving the remainder of the small fleet to continue without him.[2] On their return, he travelled out with them again; however on this voyage, the Scourge of Malice was badly damaged in a violent storm only forty leagues from England,[2] her mainmast being damaged,[4] and he was once more forced to return to seek repairs.
 * How much money did the Earl invest in his raid?
 * Lancaster's role as captain is not mentioned in the first para of the East India Company section. The caption doesn't count since it's not cited.
 * This is passive voice: During the storm, the Red Dragon's rudder was broken off, leaving the ship at the mercy of the ocean.
 * Tell the reader master Durham is at first mention.
 * "littler"; I think you mean smaller.
 * Rephrase this: One such blow on the general's pinnace broke the timbers, causing the boat to flood
 * How do you know the smaller whale was the ward of the larger one? Use companion or similar word as we don't know for sure that they were mother and child.
 * The last bit of this is unclear: having lost a number of men to scurvy, and with a number of those that remained weakened.
 * Use the common English names for the Moluccas and Amboina.
 * Reword this: The decision was not well received among the crews of the two ships, due to the weakness they were suffering from due to dysentery, and the fact that travelling to the Malucos would mean sailing against both wind and current.
 * Capitalize "King" when referring to King of XXX.
 * What's a caracoa?
 * So what happened during the Third Voyage?
 * What number voyage was the 1615-17 one? And what happened during it?
 * And how did it get to the East Indies in 1619? Is there a missing voyage?
 * Is a bahar a unit of weight or volume?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I have recently come across a fair bit of information on the voyages from 1607 onwards, but do not really have the time to add them to the article at the moment. Given this wealth of new information, the current text probably needs to be summarised a little bit more; it is currently far too detailed in places in my opinion.  Harrias  talk 12:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When do you expect to have the time? I can keep this open for a while if you'll be able to work on it in a week or so, but don't wish to do so indefinitely. If you don't expect to be able to rework the article in the near future, I can close it now and then you can relist it once you've revised it. If you want me to do this, ping me whenever you've renominated it and I'll review it again as soon as I can.
 * Summarizing more of the info might not be a bad idea, especially if you've got a lot of new information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would be able to add the information within the required time for a GA review; so from my point of view I think it would be better to close off this and have it nominated again at another point. Note however, that although I wrote the article, it was actually a drive-by nomination by User:LeftAire. I never actually thought the article was ready for GA; otherwise I'd have nominated it myself.  Harrias  talk 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll close it. I would tend to agree with your assessment of the article, but I hadn't noticed that you weren't the nominator. He's the guy that I'd expect to actually do the work since you didn't think that it was ready yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)