# Talk:Siege of St. Augustine (1702)

References to 'British' in any context before 1707 are incorrect. 'English' should be used instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.232.81 (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 

You are of course correct.  I write too much about stuff that is post-union. Magic♪piano 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I would just add to my earlier comment that the inhabitants of pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain are legitimately referred to as British but, of course, that context doesn't apply here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.63.254 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of St. Augustine (1702)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
VERY nice work! A well-written and informative article, that shows just about everything a Good Article should be.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Almost flawless, I think. I do have one quibble with the prose: Also on December 24, a pair of sails was spotted approaching St. Augustine. English records do not indicate what these ships were - this is a bit ambigious, "a pair of sails" could both belong to one ship. It's not enough to disqualify the article, but it probably should be made clearer. I've made a few minor grammatical tweaks, and also tweaked the References section for easier reading, feel free to revert of course! Also a note, double-spacing is frowned upon, since it does not display anyway. But that's a quibble.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References are all A+ or A++, article is well-cited, no OR evident. Nicely done.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Article covers the seige in adequate detail, and covers the rest of the raid well enough to both frame the siege in context and let the reader know what the rest of the raid achieved, along with the 'knock-on effects' of retalitorary raids and such.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Article is very neutral; it reports the facts, just the facts, without editorialising; doesn't 'take sides' in the conflict, and presents the efforts of both sides in a reasonable light.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Article is stable; no edit-warring, conspicious reverts, or other forms of gimcrackery are present to foul up the works.
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): 
Images are all free-use from Commons and have appropriate captions. The image of the statue of d'Iberville seems slightly out-of-place, but there should be some sort of image there to break up what would otherwise be a wall 'o text, so I'll give it a pass.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Excellent work on all counts. Florida history is a passion of mine and it's always fun to learn something new, especially when it's as well presented as this is. I have no reservations in passing this article for GA. Keep up the good work! - The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review it; glad you liked it! Magic♪piano 13:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)