Talk:Java campaign of 1806–1807

	Java campaign of 1806–1807 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2009 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / Asian / British / Dutch / European / Southeast Asia / 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 Asian military history task force British military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Indonesia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Java campaign of 1806–1807/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'British Royal Navy forces against the forces of the Kingdom of Holland,' - Repetition of 'forces'

   Repetition of 'was able' in the second paragraph of the lede

   'At the start of 1806, control in the Indian Ocean in the Napoleonic Wars was disputed' - 'of the Indian Ocean' would seem better.

   'but were still insufficient' - 'but their forces were still insufficient' needs to be added, I think, as we're referring to the British being unable to effect complete control of the ocean. Either that or replace 'insufficient' with 'unable'. Either/or, really.

   Repetition of 'too concerned' in Background section

   'Batavia roads' - What context is 'roads' used here? It doesn't seem to have been used previously.

   'Captain Pellew opened fire on the other grounded ships while boats boarded them in turn' - Should probably be clarified, as I doubt he fired when the boats were actually boarding the vessels!

   Couple of instances in the Griesse section where you use variations on 'without a single casualty', and it seems a little peacockish; I'd suggest getting rid of 'single' to make it more neutral.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   'Cautious of the larger force' - Should probably mention he believed one ship to be a ship of the line.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

That's about it. Good article, needs a few details checked before I can pass it. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. I think I have addressed all of the above, let me know if there are any more problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply