Talk:HMS Resistance (1782)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
After the thorough review that was undertaken by the author of a GA nomination of mine, I thought I would return the favour. I will start an assessment shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The six good article criteria:
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- This article was created on 4 January 2022 and is currently ranked B class.
- 99.9% of authorship is by Pickersgill-Cunliffe.
- The article is of reasonable length with 3,553 words of readable prose, plus a table of prizes and an infobox.
- The infobox and main text are illustrated by relevant images. Although not a GA criterion, I suggest adding ALT tags following MOS:ALT as this is considered good practice.
- It is noted that the image "The Argo with a Russian ship passing through the straits.jpg" is suggested for transfer to Wikipedia Commons. I suggest taking a look at this and seeing if it can be actioned.
- There are substantial notes which are separately referenced. simongraham (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Review
[edit]GA1
- "then went for a refit at Jamaica," should be "then went for a refit in Jamaica".
Done
- Consider adding a comma to "as the rearmost ship began to sail away she lost her mainmast" so that it reads "as the rearmost ship began to sail away, she lost her mainmast".
Done
- "Having returned to Portsmouth some time after this". Please clarify "some time".
- There is no date provided for her return. I have removed this part.
- Please correct "Philipines" to " Philippines", "sea bed" to "seabed" and "slavey" to"slavery".
Done
- I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
GA2
- References are from reliable sources.
- There is the occasional risk of WP:CITEKILL . For example, "Early in the afternoon of 8 March a landing party captured the island after a short defence by the Dutch garrison forces there." is followed by four references. Are all these necessary?
- Removed the Winfield reference, which just repeated what the others already provided.
- The ISBN format is inconsistent. Recommend making them all fit one format.
- Have made an attempt but am unsure if that was the kind of inconsistency you're describing.
- Suggest adding OCLC numbers to the 19th Century references (e.g. Brenton, 1837).
- Could not find correct OCLC numbers for three references but did the others. Am not an expert on this, please say if I've missed something.
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector states there is a 9.1% likelihood of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely.
GA3
- Main aspects are covered.
- The topic is covered in detail.
GA4
- There is a lack of the voice of non-Europeans. For example, the note to the statement "to which the local population resisted" only posits Dutch motivations. Did the "local population" include non-Europeans? If so, what were their motives for resistance?
- Have reworded this sentence. The attack seems to have mostly been undertaken by the local Timor-men, but it is only couched in terms of how and why the Dutch commanded or persuaded them to do so.
- Otherwise, the topic is generally covered neutrally, particularly the fate of the ship.
GA5
- There is no evidence of edit wars or content disputes. In fact, this is a very stable page.
GA6
- Images are relevant and have appropriate public domain tags.
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Please take a look at the above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Thank you for the review, I have responded to all your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please be aware that while investigating if there were any more sources on the Kupang attack I found some information relating to Resistance's earlier operations which I have now added in. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Excellent work. I feel that the additions have addressed the issues, but I am particularly pleased that you have adjusted the wikilinks in the rest of the article to avoid overlinking. It is a shame we know so little about the conflict in Timor from a non-European perspective but I suppose that is one of the limitations of the literature available. I find worldcat.org an excellent source for bibliographical details, including ISBN and OCLC numbers for the various editions of publications. However, even this is incomplete. Please take a look at what is available there and come back to me if you need any help. simongraham (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Having used worldcat for the extant OCLCs in the article, I can't find the numbers for the remaining three references there. While other editions of the books are present, I don't believe the ones that I have used are. Do you have any suggestions? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I think that looks very good. I'm happy to complete the review now. simongraham (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations. This passes as a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Having used worldcat for the extant OCLCs in the article, I can't find the numbers for the remaining three references there. While other editions of the books are present, I don't believe the ones that I have used are. Do you have any suggestions? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Excellent work. I feel that the additions have addressed the issues, but I am particularly pleased that you have adjusted the wikilinks in the rest of the article to avoid overlinking. It is a shame we know so little about the conflict in Timor from a non-European perspective but I suppose that is one of the limitations of the literature available. I find worldcat.org an excellent source for bibliographical details, including ISBN and OCLC numbers for the various editions of publications. However, even this is incomplete. Please take a look at what is available there and come back to me if you need any help. simongraham (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please be aware that while investigating if there were any more sources on the Kupang attack I found some information relating to Resistance's earlier operations which I have now added in. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)