Talk:Battle of Flores (1592)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Battle of Flores (1592)/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanate General (talk · contribs) 14:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "led by initially Walter Raleigh" "Initially" should be placed next to the verb "led".
  • "including the large Portuguese Carrack Madre de Deus which was captured after a long naval battle off Flores island" "Which" introduces a nonrestrictive clause and needs a comma.
  • "The expedition, particularly the capture of the great carrack was a huge success" The parenthetical phrase is missing a comma after "carrack".
  • "and subsequent arguments of share." The clause needs a verb, like "there were subsequent arguments".

General

  • The toolbox shows that multiple links need to be disambiguated .
  • There are problems with the sources:
    • Pages should be abbreviated p. or pp. and not pg.
    • Many of the page numbers are also missing a period after the abbreviation.
    • Some of the references are malformed, like the "[[{{subst:date}}]]" in the Hakluyt reference
    • Why are there Spanish words in a list of English language sources? "págs. 59." in the Edwards references should be "pages".
    • This is a minor nitpick, but you should cite the 2004 updated Oxford DNB instead of the outdated 1885 one.
  • The article is in need of some major copyediting. There are several grammatical and MoS issues, just in the lead alone. Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
  • File:Elizabeth1592.jpg is missing the copyright parameters.
    • The article is broad in coverage, stable, and neutral. However, there are problems with the sources, grammar, and images. The article needs a copyeditor to go through it before the review resumes.--Khanate General (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted some of this.
talk) 22:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. Could you list the changes that you've made below the comments in the bullet points? So that we can determine what still needs fixing.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 23:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure:
  • Pages abbreviated to p.
  • Sorted malformed reference - Hakluyt.
  • Edwards reference - Spanish words removed & replaced.
  • File:Elizabeth1592.jpg now has the correct copyright parameter.
  • Improvements in the lead as pointed out.

Will work on some more later.

talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Has everything else been addressed? Wizardman 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a request for
talk) 11:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Can the clarification needed tag be addressed? If so I'll pass this assuming good faith that the copyedit will finally get done (I did a skim look in the meantime) Wizardman 02:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The copyedit request is in
talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a clarification tag in the second paragraph of Expedition, placed by User:MostRecentUser on 14 February.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 07:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Complicated given the nature of a joint stock venture.
talk) 13:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Passing now that the copyedit has (finally) been done. Wizardman 05:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify this?

"George Clifford, the Earl of Cumberland had a large stake in the expedition; the ship Dainty (owned by John Hawkins) under command of John Norton as well as many of the support ships that were with the fleet belonged to him."

So who owned Dainty? Clifford or Hawkins? Or does "belonging to" mean something different from "owned by" that, not being versed in naval terms, I don't know about? MostRecentUser (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it was a joint stock venture, Hawkins still owned the ship, but the fleet belonged to Cumberland; complicated yes but this was how things operated in Elizabethan England.
talk) 19:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 18:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Flores (1592). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Flores_(1592)&oldid=1193678951"