# Talk:Charles Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1744)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1744)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 00:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to this review in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Source check - I checked the following against the ODNB article used as a source:
"The constituency was traditionally a naval one, controlled by the Admiralty." which was supported. The rest of the ODNB citations are paired with other sources - the ODNB partially supports then and where I could check a couple of others they also supported the information given.

Lead:
"following his cousin Captain Thomas Hardy into his ship HMS Pendennis." this is ... jargonish - perhaps "joining his cousin Captain Thomas Hardy's ship HMS..."
Done.
Do we REALLY need the various details of all the ships in the lead? The lead is pretty long for an article of this size - I'd expect at most two paragraphs for the lead for an article that only has about 1800 words in the main body.
Agree that the lede is too long, have had a go at shortening it
Early service:
"volunteer" do we have a link to explain this to those folks not conversant with the concept?
It's widely used in naval biographies here, but it doesn't seem that anyone has found/created a useful link for the role (basically someone who wants to be a midshipman joins a ship that already has its quota of midshipmen, or is too young to become one, and is a volunteer until a space as midshipman eventuates). I'll try and find a source that I can provide an explanation with
I've clearly been spending too much time writing the Napoleonic era. I was thinking of "Volunteer First Class", a rank created in 1794 for a similar purpose. Volunteer-per-order does, however, have an article (doh..!)
Captain:
"in her in the winter of 1706" we really don't need "in her" here .. as he's in command, the ship will be assumed to have moved with him to the North Sea
Removed.
"He returned to home waters in the following year" (coughs) but for me, my home waters are Lake Superior... so can we avoid this POV-statement?
Replaced.
"Hardy did go on active service in 1718 when given his next " makes no sense to me?
Reworded - a leftover from when the active read quite differently.
"Having become an Elder Brother of Trinity House in 1722" what does this mean?
It's a senior position within Trinity House, I've reworded slightly so it sounds less like his position in Trinity House and his next command were connected.
"Hardy received his next command in January 1726, when he went on board the 70-gun ship of the line HMS Grafton." this almost sounds like because he boarded the ship, he was given the command...
Reworded.
Lord of the Admiralty:
"until he was promoted by seniority " what does this mean?
Removed as unnecessary; all ranks below flag rank had to be achieved through merit (or patronage), but once an officer reached post captain they had to wait until their name reached the top of the seniority list (waiting for everyone else to die or be promoted in turn) before they could become a rear-admiral.
Channel Fleet:
"Hardy also hoisted his flag on board" why "also"?
Your guess is as good as mine!
"looking to combat the French fleet" this just is a weird phrasing - can we reword?
Reworded.
"Soon after this Hardy was detached from the fleet with a squadron of eleven ships of the line under his command. He was to sail as escort to a fleet of storeships that were to restock the Mediterranean Fleet." suggest "Soon after this Hardy commanded a detached squadron of eleven ships of the line serving as an escort for storeships sent to restock the Mediterranean Fleet." (I'd also remove the "ships of the line" but I suspect you'd disagree)
Done as suggested, but as you supposed I've kept ships of the line - for all the reader knows "eleven ships" might be bumboats!
"The merchant ships Hardy had left were forced to stay for a while because the winds were against them. While held up there the French discovered their location and sent fourteen ships of the line from Brest to blockade them.[16][29] Admiral Sir John Balchen broke the blockade of the merchant ships with a large fleet on 28 July." this is .. way too much detail for something Hardy had nothing to do with... please condense or even omit totally.
Shortened slightly and turned it all into a note. I think it's useful for context, and despite Hardy not actually being there the convoy is still described in most sources as "Hardy's convoy" or the like during the blockade.
I've (as usual) done a good bit of copyediting. Please make sure I haven't broken anything.
Thanks as always for the copyediting. I really am rather rubbish at catching these things myself!
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Hi, thanks for the review. I've responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
These all look good, I'm passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)