# Talk:Gravesend Blockhouse

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gravesend Blockhouse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 19:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hchc2009, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this review in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian  (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Hchc2009, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian  (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, 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): 

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 fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the blockhouse, establishes the blockhouse's necessary context, and explains why the blockhouse is otherwise notable.
The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
The image of the foundations of the Gravesend Blockhouse is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here.
The Kent locator map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is also acceptable for use here.
Consider wiki-linking "Dutch navy" to Naval history of the Netherlands.
I suggest making it clear in the lede that the initial invasion Henry feared was from France and the Holy Roman Empire specifically.
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Background

This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
Device of 1539

This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
Construction

The image of the blockhouse plan is licensed CC0 and is therefore free to use in this section.
I suggest splitting the first paragraph so that the discussion of the planning and construction are in one, and the specifications and measurements are in another.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Use in the 16th century

So that it is consistent with the subsequent sections, I recommend renaming this section "16th century."
The image of the engraving from 1588 has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link Tower of London here in its first usage within the article.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.
17th century

The image of the blockhouse in the 17th century has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
For consistency's sake, I would name the monarch Charles II in its first usage with a wiki link to his article, rather than refer to him as King Charles. Charles I and James I were referred as such above.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.
18th - 19th centuries

I would suggest adding a "–" dash between 18th and 19th centuries.
The image of Sir Thomas Page has been released into the Public Domain and is suitable for use here.
Perhaps consider rewording the last sentence of this section as "The blockhouse building was subsequently demolished in 1844."
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
20th - 21st centuries

As stated above, I would suggest adding a "–" dash between 20th and 21st centuries.
Is the UK law being referred to here, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979? If so, it should be mentioned by name.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.
Cheers! All the changes should now be made, other than the link to the UK laws; I'm uncertain which  act was used in the 1979 decision (there are previous ones), but the schedule monument link gives some background to this. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hchc2009, thank you for addressing these comments. I appreciate all your great work on this and other articles, and it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)