# Talk:Action of 22 August 1795

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 22 August 1795/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
prose:   (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
1. and there purchased for the Royal Navy. Suggest - and was purchased for the Royal Navy
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, apologies for the delay and thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Passed. Good job Jacky. Thurgate (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the article somewhat one-sidedly is written from the British point of view. Based on Dutch contemporary sources I have added a paragraph to the Aftermath section (which also gives a source for the Dutch casualties aboard the Argo) giving the contemporary Dutch point of view, which emphasizes the British violations of international law (attack without declaration of war and violation of Danish neutrality, which Denmark would have been obligated to defend).--Ereunetes (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I was the original author of the article, and I wanted to thank you for this addition. I don't speak Dutch, so had to rely on British sources for this article; your additions have significantly improved the text - I would now go so far as to claim that this is now probably the most complete account of this action in English anywhere. It is interesting how strongly the Dutch of the time invested in the notion of maritime neutrality, which the Royal Navy gleefully violated at every opportunity.
I would normally agree with you, but I just added a note that put a different light on the matter from a Dutch source (admittedly much later in the 19th century). In this case the Dutch really seem to have been the aggressors, though De Winter may not have known it at the time of his Proclamation. The same source suggests that the defense of the Alliantie may not have been so valiant after all, as there were "later reports" (probably from the POW Dutch officers) that the crew of the Alliantie had been mutinous during the fight, and had torn up a signal flag to get at the orange-colored part of that flag, to show their allegiance to the cause of the Orange party (this appears plausible in view of the generally anti-Batavian attitude of Dutch navy crews of the time, as e.g. shown during the Vlieter Incident. But I decided against including this, as it appears a bit speculative.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind if I slightly edited the text for a couple of grammar issues?
As long as the meaning of the text does not change I don't mind at all.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, is this an area of the encyclopedia you edit regularly? Would you be interested in taking a look at some of the other Anglo-Dutch naval articles I originally wrote? The most obvious is Battle of Camperdown of course. Best
I am flattered :-) Actually, my editing days are past me. I contributed a lot, especially on Dutch history up to 2013, when I got into an altercation with some wikipedians that were blindly "enforcing" some new edict on the form of the ledes of articles by mutilating a few of my biographical entries. I got so fed up, that I ceased my contributions, at least on a regular basis. So I now only contribute if something takes my fancy. But I don't mind taking a look at Camperdown, though I don't promise anything :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)