Talk:Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

1. Well-written:

'deploy substantial frigate squadrons' - Could substantial be replaced with 'numerous' or the like, as substantial doesn't quite seem right.

Substantial is better than numerous: each side had only one frigate squadron in the campaign, but the squadrons both had, comparatively, a lot of ships.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'the most notable of which was a fleet of small vessels run by the noted Robert Surcouf.' - Notable seems slightly peacock, can you expand on why he's notable or remove the word? Done (not really the place for further elaboration on Surcouf).
'Captain Pierre Bouvet in the ex-Portuguese Minerve' - If this is the Portuguese 52-gunner previously named, can it be mentioned it was renamed? Done
'As the French ships entered the channel. As the French passed the fort, Willoughby sprang his trap and opened fire' - Probably obvious what needs fixing here :) Done
'but a false French tricolour flying from Île de la Passe accidentally ignited a ready magazine in the fort, causing severe damage and casualties' - Can you clarify how this occurred? How did it ignite the magazine, being a flag? I'm guessing it was on fire somehow? Done
'Willoughby managed to mitigate some of the effects' - How did he do this, and what effects? Done
'and was chased back to Saint Denis by Hamelin's flagship' - This needs to be consistent - you don't name Venus hedre, but you do a few sentences later. Done

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

'the most notable of which was a fleet of small vessels run by the noted Robert Surcouf.' - Can we have a citation, please?

3. Broad in its coverage:

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

File:Combat_de_Grand_Port_mg_9425.jpg - This confuses me. How can it the uploader's own work, it looks like a very old painting?

Changed the tag to the correct one, no idea why they added the tag they did.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article, just has a few prose issues and that image to sort out. Skinny87 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, hopefully this is now acceptable for GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All good, I'll pass it now! Skinny87 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]