# Talk:John Walter Roberts

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Walter Roberts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 
I will take a look at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


### Comments
Lead

served as a junior officer in the English Channel...: suggest "served as a junior officer on ships in the"
Added.
captured the pirate Zaragozana.: suggest "captured the pirate ship Zaragozana." I was wondering who Zaragozana was and why his name was italicised until I clicked on the link!
Added.
Military career
Junior officer

to India to take up post as...: suggest "to India to take up his post as"
Added.
serving with Capel off: who/what is Capel? or is Endymion meant? (Doing spot checks on sourcing I see that Capel was commander of Endymion, so that needs to be added for antecedence)
Remnant of a previous rendition in which I named most of the commanders of the ships Roberts served in. Removed for consistency.
I can't recall if it is a thing for you or not, but the cites for the final paragraph are in reverse order
Switched.
Command

Having walked inland about 50 miles (80 km) by 22 February, ... and chose to return to Shearwater, arriving back on the following day.: can I have a fact check on this; as I read this, I make the "following day" 23 Feb) so this means they walked 80km in a day? Also delete the italicised 'on'
Double checked, and this should read 23 February: "Feb. 23rd. We still travelled forward, being now afraid to stop lest we should he affected with cramp. At daylight we arrived on the seacoast. In a few hours after we came in sight of the ship, and arrived on board about seven a.m. quite knocked up, having travelled these last twenty-four hours, with scarcely any rest, upwards of fifty miles."
The lead mentions a promotion to post-captain, but that is not mentioned here. The links for this rank and captain are distinct from each other, so should this distinction be carried through here?
Changed.
Personal

The couple went on to have children together.: is there a missing number there?
Nope! Source only says "they had issue".
Other stuff

Sources look reliable albeit some quite dated
Spot checks of sources (O'Byrne) (Marshall 1830)
No dupe links
Image tags OK
That's my comments done for now. Zawed (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: Hi, thanks for reviewing this. My comments are above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
"I'm happy with this, passing as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)