# Talk:Battle of the Îles Saint-Marcouf

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Îles Saint-Marcouf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)


### Issues
This is very good.  Always entertaining and informative.  I like reading your material.
Just a few issues:
Prose: you definitely have the propensity for inactive tense.  It would be so much better if you used the active tense. For example: Two years earlier a British garrison had been placed on the islands, which operated as a resupply base for Royal Navy ships cruising off the coast of Northern France. // Twoyears earlier, a British garrison established a supply base on the islands for Royal Navy... or something to that effect.  Generally, the active tense puts the subject in the subject's place, and the subject and the verb interact together.  When you use the "inactive" tense (or indirect, or whatever it could be called), the real subject is in the place of the object, or even worse, the indirect object, which requires all kinds of verb convolutions for the sentence.  ?  This is a problem throughout, although I tweaked most of the problems in the last section.
Related prose issue: In 1795 a prominent Royal Navy officer named Captain Sir Sidney Smith recognised that if resupply points could be established on islands off the French coast, then cruising warships could extend their time at sea.  // In 1795, Captain Sir Sidney Smith, a prominent (?-well-known, daring, publicity hound, ....) recognized the usefulness of the islands as a supply depot for cruising warships.  Or at least take out "named" here and later when you use it for someone else...
confusing: they were given a small hoy....hoy is linked, but to an island in the Orkneys.  The Orkneys are a bit far for them, yes?

Thankyou for your review and the above comments. I have rephrased the two sentences you highlighted, and have corrected the problematic link. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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: 
nice!  generally, when I give a couple of examples, these are examples, and you've got similar issues throughout the text.  I fixed a few, but it is still full of passive voice.  Just something to think about for your next article.  Anyway, it's a pleasure, as always, to pass such a thoughtful piece.Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC):