Contents

Talk:Action of 9 September 1796

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Action of 9 September 1796 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	Action of 9 September 1796 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 reassessit.
	Action of 9 September 1796 is part of the East Indies theatre of the French Revolutionary Wars series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 17, 2015 Good article nominee Listed January 28, 2018 Good topic candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 9, 2023.
Current status: Good article

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

British Empire This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Mauritius Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mauritius. Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / 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 articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force French military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) United Kingdom Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unless anyone minds, I'm planning a quick tidy up of this article over the next few days, similar to my recent work at Battle of Ile Ronde. Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tided and sourced the article - I've also corrected a few things: it was fought on 9 September, not 8 September and off Sumatra, not Mauritius, hence the new title - the old history can be seen at Action of 8 September 1796. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 9 September 1796/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Decent work there like normal, but I have a few comments.

Thanks for this review. I have some questions. Also, has this passed? The last line seems to suggest you passed it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Fix dashes using the script

• What script?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CharInsert. It is on by default. You can turn it on in your preferences

• It is unecessary to cites like this The M4 Sherman served in WWII.^[1] It later served in the Korean War.^[1]

• I think I've only done this when there is only one ref in the paragraph, in which case I've spaced them out to make it clear the whole paragraph is sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Space between the "p" and number in the cites

• Is this really necessary? I thought it was up to editor preference?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB link to broadside — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk • contribs) 11:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(reference section): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

• You only need one kind of identifier for the references, not two.

• I don't know what this means.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It means that you don't need both oclcs and isbns for your refs.

• Please and oclcs or isbns for two of the sources

• I don't know what an OCLC is or where to find it. The two references without ISBNS were published before ISBNS were invented.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OCLC numbers are found on www.worldcat.org. There are used for identifing refs that were mad before isbns were invented.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Passing, well done (I have finished two issues on my own).--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]