Talk:Action of 16 October 1799

Action of 16 October 1799 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 26, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Spanish / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Action of 16 October 1799 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that at the Action of 16 October 1799 a Spanish treasure convoy worth more than £600,000 (£43 million at present value) was captured by the Royal Navy?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Action of 16 October 1799.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 16 October 1799/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 19:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jackyd101, I have completed a thorough review and re-review of this article and I find that it exceeds all Good Article criteria. I just have a few minor comments below that should be addressed prior to the article's final passage to Good Article status. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the naval engagement, establishes context for the naval engagement, explains why the naval engagement is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the naval engagement.
The info box is beautifully-formatted and its contents are sourced from internally-cited references.
The image of HMS Ethalion in action is releasable to the public domain and is therefore free to use here.
Great Britain should be written as such throughout the article for consistency's sake.

Done when referring to the political entity, not when referring to the island.

The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

This section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Chase

An image of HMS Naiad (1797) should be included in this section for aesthetics.

The only image of this ship is in a post-Trafalgar context from 1805 and Naiad isn't the biggest ship in the image so using it here might be misleading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider renaming the section "Pursuit," although this is merely a suggestion.
This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Battle

This section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

This section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Thanks for the review, done or replied!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackyd101, thank you for quickly addressing my comments and concerns. I've reviewed the article and hereby pass it to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done. -- Caponer (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]