Talk:Battle of Lake Pontchartrain

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Lake Pontchartrain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I will start this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• This article is very hard for me to understand because it deals so much in specifics. If the general reader is not already familiar, in depth, with the situation, then I believe it's hard to understand. I think it needs some general statements to set the stage now and then.
• I think this is a well written article, but very dense. Some sentences are unclear.

lede

• Not a summary of the article - it should orient the general reader to the overall picture and the general happenings and outcome.
• "American Revolutionary War" ... here it should say who exactly the two parties fighting were. (This is a major point.)
• "between" - the reader expects to learn "between who" instead of the two towns, although that is important too.
• "Spanish-American crew" - meaning some Spanish citizens and some Americans?

Background

• "quietly supported by the Spanish governors and often mediated by Oliver Pollock, a prominent New Orleans businessman." - not clear from this sentence what the significance of this is. - (later he is mentioned in another section and it turns out he has military power)

Prelude

• "The boat never returned." Is the next sentence an explanation of what happened to the "boat"?
• "Pollock had given command of the Morris to Continental Navy Captain William Pickles." - Pollock had this kind of power?
• "Gálvez provided another ship for Pickles' use" - why him?
• "Pollock instructed Pickles to harass British military shipping" - then Pollack again?
• Maybe some explanation (somewhere - not necessarily here) how the French were involved?

References

• should put {subscription only) after Oxford Dictionary of National Biography reference, JSTOR etc.
• link to The Times-Picayune reference doesn't go to article put to current main page.

Thanks for your insightful comments. I think I've addressed your major points, except:

• why Pickles: umm, because he has the commission, and his ship was destroyed? (Presumably Pollock was also involved in procuring the replacement ship, but this is to me a minor point.)
• French involvement: I believe Rousseau was a French Louisianan. Even though Louisiana was under Spanish governance then, its population was mostly French. France was not involved in events in this area.
• The link to the Times-Picayune article worked once upon a time, but they seem to have dropped pre-2009 material. I've converted the citation to {{cite news}}.

--Magic♪piano 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   All problems fixed!

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   Has placed the battle in context.

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Very nice article. Your clarifications helped greatly. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)