Talk:HMS Agamemnon (1781)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There are a lot of redlinks in this article. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, there are a couple of things to consider. One, that you may have the wrong link to an article. For example, in the Under Nelson section, King Ferdinand IV is redlinked. In my experience, most kings, even minor ones, have articles on WP. In other cases, how sure are you that the subject will have an article at some point in the future? For example, how notable are the ships redlinked in the Under Nelson and the Mutiny and the Baltic sections? If a subject is not very likely to have an article in the future, it probably shouldn't be linked.
   • The lead could stand to be bulked up a bit. Not more paragraphs, just a couple more sentences to each paragraph. Try to pull a bit from each section in the body. Also, since the lead is a summary of the article, there should be no new information in the lead. So things such as who the ship was named after should be mentioned (and sourced) in the body.
   • In the Construction section, do you have any information on why the crew gave her the nickname they did?
   • In the American Revolutionary War section, you say "in which the ships of Hood's van division were badly damaged". I'm not sure what a "van division" is (or if this is just a typo), so could you please wikilink and/or explain in the text?
   • Same section, you say "had 2 lieutenants and 14 men killed". What were the lieutenants...aliens? *grin*

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • What makes Ref 5 (Camulos) a reliable reference?
   • What makes Ref 13 (Woodland Trust) a reliable reference for quotes and info on the ship?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • It might be interesting to add some sort of a "Legacy" section to the article. To this you could add the rediscovery of the sunken ship, the wood named after the ship as related in the Woodland Trust reference (it would be a reliable reference for this information), other ships with the same name, any cultural significance, etc. Thoughts?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall a nice article, but there are a few issues that I've found with prose/MOS, references and coverage, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW, I've fixed Ferdinand IV (he was a weird case, having about seven different titles sequentially), and the rest of the redlinks look fine to me. The two geographical ones in Uruguay could possibly be delinked, but there's no harm in leaving them; all the others are ships which'll eventually be filled in (note how many bluelinked names there are!) or notable-seeming individuals. Shimgray | talk | 01:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review - I'll address all the points as time permits. You make a fair point about a couple of the references - I'm hoping I'll be able to replace those with more appropriate ones in a couple of days so bear with me on that point! (Waiting for a book to arrive now). A Legacy section sounds like quite a good idea as well. I have addressed the alien lieutenants point, though (I laughed when I read that, but quite right!) Martocticvs (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm glad to see things are progressing on the article (and thank you for taking the aliens comment in the humerous way it was intended!). I am of course willing to wait until you receive your book, just let me know if you need more time beyond the normal week waiting period and keep me updated on your progress! I want to mention to Shimgray that I'm not completely sure what the point of making Ferdinand a redirect was, rather than just fixing the link, but I suppose what's done is done and it's not a huge deal. Other than that, good luck with your new references and I look forward to seeing the new information. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   OK, I think I've dealt with all the points now. I've expanded and slightly re-jigged the lead section, found information on the origins of the ship's nickname (quite accidentally - book fell open on the right page!)... I replaced van with vanguard - vanguard is of course the full word, but in most texts it seems to be referred to as the van (perhaps colloquially, I'm not sure). For the references: the Camulos one is now gone, superseded by information from Deane's book; the Woodland Trust quote was also re-sourced from that book (where I found that there was a little more to it, not included on the website), and I reused the reference as you suggested in the new legacy section. Martocticvs (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Very nice work, especially on the new legacy section! The article looks great, so I am passing it to GA status. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for your assistance! Martocticvs (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)