Talk:Andrew Leake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andrew Leake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Initial review

I plan to review this article. I've skimmed it and it looks good. My full review will follow. Djmaschek (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Review 1

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: For GA class articles, I prefer to have the author make all the changes. Please fix or argue your case for leaving it alone. You will note that I like to see some indication of the year at the start of the paragraph. If I have to look around for the year, I assume other readers will also. Other than that, the article is very well written with few errors. Djmaschek (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, illustrated.  Done
• Introduction: "joined the navy in 1688 with under the patronage" (Remove either "with" or "under".)

• Done.

• Introduction: "Promoted to commander but unable to find a post" (He commanded Roebuck and Fox before being assigned to Victory. So "unable to find a post" seems inaccurate.)

• Rewritten.

• Initial service, paragraph 2: "On 7 August Leake" (Please add 1690.)

• Done.

• Initial service, paragraph 2: "through the proceeding summer" (I think "proceeding" is the wrong word. Alternatives: "next", "following" or else leave it out - i.e. "through that summer".)

• Changed.

• Post-captain, paragraph 1: "in July for the armament of that year" (I'm not sure what "in the armament of that year" means. Is "armament" an official event? If not, then I suggest shortening the phrase to: "in July 1693".)

• Removed phrase. Would be confusing and probably unhelpful to explain.

• Post-captain, paragraph 2: "He was brought back to service on 18 November" (What year? First sentence implies 1698, but it's not clear.)

• Yes, clarified.

• Vigo Bay and knighthood, paragraph 2: "On 12 October they fought the Battle of Vigo Bay" (Please add 1702.)

• Done.

• Gibraltar and Málaga, paragraph 1, sentence 2: "Shovell's fleet left Britain on 1 July" (Please add 1703.)

• Done.

• Gibraltar and Málaga, paragraph 3, sentence 1: "By July Leake had" (Please add 1704.)

• Done.

@Djmaschek: Hi, thanks for the review! Have replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: GA class. While looking for a portrait of Leake, I came across John Leake who was in Newfoundland only a year after Andrew Leake. How confusing! Djmaschek (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Andrew Leake commanded 10 ships of the Royal Navy before dying at the Battle of Málaga? Source: In the article
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fire Shut Up in My Bones

Improved to Good Article status by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 17:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC).

• Starting this review. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is comprehensive. Meets eligibility criteria for DYK - recently promoted to GA. Written well and has no issues with tone etc. Article is extensively sourced but is sourced largely to offline sources, so, I will WP:AGF on that front. Earwig notes no Copyvio issues. However, I suspect that Earwig can not look at the offline sources. However, I will WP:AGF. Regarding the hook itself -- I am counting 10 naval ships in the infobox and I see them in the body as well. Some reviewers ask that the hook be introduced as a sentence in the article itself. Please see if that is possible. Not a hard and fast rule in my opinion. But, something to consider. QPQ done. Hook is reasonably interesting. All-in-all I am passing this with an AGF tag. Ktin (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

fixing. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)