Talk:Prince of Wales (1786 ship)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sources look fine.
CorenSearchBot shows no copyright violations. Googling three random phrases showed nothing matching but Wikipedia mirrors.
Construction:
- Links for "captain of marines", "judge-advocate"?
- Not required, but probably want a citation for the sentence "Both marine officers would sail with the Fleet to Australia, Tench as a captain of marines and Collins as judge-advocate for the new colony." eventually.
First voyage:
- Link for "Governor of New South Wales", "storeships"?
- "She was the last transport to be added to the Fleet before it sailed." duplicates the information in the last sentence of the "Construction" section. Suggest just moving the bits from that last paragraph of construction to this sentence/paragraph, where it fits better.
Marines:
- Link for "Sergeant of Marines"?
Return to England:
- Not a requirement but probably need a citation for "Twelve of Prince of Wales ' sickest crew members were hospitalised in Rio while the remainder recovered on board." eventually.
Second voyage:
- Not a requirement but "On 16 January she came within sight of Formosa but was unable to make landfall due to heavy seas." will probaly want a citation at some point.
None of these are enough to keep the article from GA status - they are just points to consider if you're going to take the article up for FAC. I do suggest a Peer Review or someone else copyediting it before FAC also, as prose isn't my strongest point. I did make some copyedits along the way, nothing major. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth, and I will certainly address the above points over the next few days.

I doubt I will take this to FAC as the available materials are a bit bare - they cover the points in this article but there are no further records of her merchant career outside the Australian voyages. Absent these additional service details the article cannot be entirely comprehensive, and so is probably not worthy of an FA.

Also agree that it needs further prose improvement, though with respect I think you sell yourself short in your second last sentence. Thanks again for the review. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]