Talk:William Grinfield/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I will pick this one up. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, no rush, just pinging in case this has passed you by. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * battle of Lincelles: I think battle can be capitalised here (but not siege as you have correctly done) and also in article body.
 * Done.
 * Grinfield continued in command of the 3rd Guards until 1795...: no antecedence for "continued"
 * Reworded
 * eighteen days later, aged 58.: if we know his age when he died, then we can pin his dob to 1842–1843 and mention in infobox and elsewhere.
 * Done.

Early service

 * captain and lieutenant-colonel in 1776.: Perhaps "captain and lieutenant-colonel (regimental and army ranks respectively) in 1776."
 * The different ranks are noted earlier in the same sentence, do you think the repetition is needed?
 * I have added "respectively" here but delete if you don't like it. This isn't something that I think would justify holding up promotion. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Home service

 * major-general should be linked on first mention in previous paragraph
 * Done.
 * Continuing to command the 3rd Foot Guards,...: as per the lead, it hasn't been stated yet that he was commanding the 3rd Foot Guards, just the 1st Battalion of same.
 * Reworded to avoid saying that he commanded them. Technically there was a colonel above him who "commanded" the battalion/regiment (I believe there was only one battalion at this point, although it is still described as the "1st Battalion" in source).

Capture of Saint Lucia and Tobago

 * 640 French soldiers were taken prisoner: numbers shouldn't start a sentence unless written out
 * Reworded.
 * Capture of Saint Lucia and Tobago: on 25 June, attacking Tobago on 30 June. suggest "attacking Tobago five days later" to avoid using close usage of dates.
 * Done.

Other stuff
That's about it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of the sources are quite historic; I think they will be acceptable for GA but wouldn't be surprised if there is pushback if this goes to A-Class.
 * Yep, I initially struggled to find good sources at all. Not an article I'll be taking further, but thought it deserved to at least exist.
 * Image tags OK
 * Hi, thanks for the review. I've responded to your comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To wrap things up, I did a spotcheck on the online sources, they look to support what they are used to cite. I am satisfied that this meets the requirements of GA so passing now. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)