This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Second Ostend Raid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Second Ostend Raid is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 18, 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have taken on Second Ostend Raid for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Jackyd101. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in posting this assessment (busy RL lately!). However, I am pleased to tell you that Second Ostend Raid can be passed in its current form as a good article under the Good article criteria. I have listed it on the Good Articles page under History > War and military > Conflicts, battles and military exercises and updated any templates on this talk page. For the record, the following editors have been identified from the article history as contributing significantly: Jackyd101.
Congratulations, and well done! EyeSerene TALK 10:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, I requested this article for the main page on November 11 here. It doesn't have to be this one, but I believe that we should have a WWI article on that day. -- Scorpion 0422 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the comment about 'wearing out of barrels' being the only outcome of the first ostend raid. While this may well have been the case, I also recall reading that some naval guns were only good for 100 shots before the barrels had to be relined. So basically, this would be norrmal wear and tear and not very surprising, thus not a significant point to draw attention to specifically. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I come back to my initial position, that this is currently a FA. That means it is as good as we can make it. I noticed a discrepancy and noted it here. I don't have the facts to hand to confirm the point. Your response seemes to imply a view that since a source had said it was so, you dismiss the matter. I don't expect you or anyone else to leap into action on my observation, but when someone points out a possible problem it is not acceptable simply to dismiss it as 'sourced'. Do you think a real paid encyclopedia would simply dismiss a potential error someone had pointed out, however good the original source seemed to be? It is only a minor point in the article as a whole, but it sounds like we are reproducing some authors sarcastic dismissal of the raid. Wiki doesn't do sarcasm. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice this article starts out as a redirect to malcolm mercer. You (jackyd101) seem to be leaving a trail of articles on wiki which start with links to articles you created personally. I'm not sure what process you are following to create these articles but perhaps you could revise it so this doesn't happen? Sandpiper ( talk) 07:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
"Whilst Antwerp was a deep water port vulnerable to British attack from the sea, Bruges, sitting 6 mi (5.2 nmi; 9.7 km) inland, was comparatively safe from naval bombardment or coastal raids. "
This statement seems quite non-sensical. Antwerp isn't on the sea. It is four times as far from the sea as what Bruges it. Eregli bob ( talk) 02:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Second Ostend Raid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Second Ostend Raid is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 18, 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have taken on Second Ostend Raid for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Jackyd101. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in posting this assessment (busy RL lately!). However, I am pleased to tell you that Second Ostend Raid can be passed in its current form as a good article under the Good article criteria. I have listed it on the Good Articles page under History > War and military > Conflicts, battles and military exercises and updated any templates on this talk page. For the record, the following editors have been identified from the article history as contributing significantly: Jackyd101.
Congratulations, and well done! EyeSerene TALK 10:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, I requested this article for the main page on November 11 here. It doesn't have to be this one, but I believe that we should have a WWI article on that day. -- Scorpion 0422 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the comment about 'wearing out of barrels' being the only outcome of the first ostend raid. While this may well have been the case, I also recall reading that some naval guns were only good for 100 shots before the barrels had to be relined. So basically, this would be norrmal wear and tear and not very surprising, thus not a significant point to draw attention to specifically. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I come back to my initial position, that this is currently a FA. That means it is as good as we can make it. I noticed a discrepancy and noted it here. I don't have the facts to hand to confirm the point. Your response seemes to imply a view that since a source had said it was so, you dismiss the matter. I don't expect you or anyone else to leap into action on my observation, but when someone points out a possible problem it is not acceptable simply to dismiss it as 'sourced'. Do you think a real paid encyclopedia would simply dismiss a potential error someone had pointed out, however good the original source seemed to be? It is only a minor point in the article as a whole, but it sounds like we are reproducing some authors sarcastic dismissal of the raid. Wiki doesn't do sarcasm. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice this article starts out as a redirect to malcolm mercer. You (jackyd101) seem to be leaving a trail of articles on wiki which start with links to articles you created personally. I'm not sure what process you are following to create these articles but perhaps you could revise it so this doesn't happen? Sandpiper ( talk) 07:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
"Whilst Antwerp was a deep water port vulnerable to British attack from the sea, Bruges, sitting 6 mi (5.2 nmi; 9.7 km) inland, was comparatively safe from naval bombardment or coastal raids. "
This statement seems quite non-sensical. Antwerp isn't on the sea. It is four times as far from the sea as what Bruges it. Eregli bob ( talk) 02:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)