Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Grand Port

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Grand Port

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and unusual naval battle of the Napoleonic Wars. This has reached GA class, I'm interested in FA class and would like to take it up a notch and pick up any tips along the way. Enjoy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Battle of Grand Port/archive1

Tpbradbury Hi Jack, good article and one of the best pictures i've seen on wiki.

Gambier and O'Brian need book details referencing.

who is Gambier? Do you mean Gardiner? If so, he is at the bottom.

Gambier is also referred to in references 54 and 55 or so, p.96 and p.97. different from gardiner.

Oh yeah! Wierd! I must have been very tired that day. The refs refer to Gardiner and have been changed accordingly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks better not to have bracketed detail in intro (although fighting began on 11...etc) as this can go in main article - in any case it says in article that fighting began on evening of 10 aug.

removed bracket.

intro covers aftermath which is good but probably goes into too much detail into the future for the lead; bertie is not mentioned later and intro should not cover anthing not referred to in main body of text.

Updated main text rather than cut down lead.

Macmillan is old ref but has not been outdated by new research?

Well he is old, but James is 87 years older than him and Gardiner and Woodman are both modern (as is Taylor, whose book I have just purchased and will be incorporating). I haven't so far seen anything to criticise in Macmillan's work, it seems sound to me.

any other pictures might be nice, but it looks like you've got everything in there that is to hand.
consider putting refs into 3 columns.
i wouldn't use 'complicated' in the first sentence but perhaps use later in article.

Removed

will add more as i think of anything, if i get a proper chance to look! Tom B (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered some of the above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered them all I think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

"As Victor passed Nereide and the fort, Willoughby opened fire, Captain Morice surrendering the outnumbered corvette after the first volley, Willoughby sending out boats to attempt to take possession of Victor." You suddenly switch to the historical present here, please redo the sentence.
" Nereide anchoring nearby to protect the flagship." Please break this into a separate sentence, or otherwise separate it and rewrite it so it is not in the present.
"Within minutes of the British attack, Ceylon surrendered, boats from Magicienne seeking but failing to take possession of her." Again, rephrase.
"the first lieutenant was dying, the second severely wounded and Willoughby with his left eye dislodged from its socket by a wooden splinter." The second was severely wounded, and the whole last clause is very bad and awkward.
"and refused to personally abandon his ship for the same reason" This isn't very clear, clarify please.
"When daylight rose, it showed a scene of great confusion, with Sirius and Magicienne grounded in the approaches to the harbour, the French ships piled on the beach "in a heap",[40] Iphigenia slowly pulling herself away from the French squadron and Nereide lying broken and battered under the guns of Bellone, a Union Flag still nailed to her masthead." Awkward, again, that historical present.
"The two extra days Hamelin had spent rounding Île de France had seen much activity for the British remaining at Grand Port." Avoid passive voice.
"on the 22 August." No the.
"On the 30 December 1899" Again.
Perhaps the order of battle section could be moved to the beginning, after the background section?

I would have placed it there too, but in the FAC for Battle of Lissa (1811) I was told to move it to the bottom.

If it is better there, move it there and reference this little conversation in the FAC. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you can leave it there, but that's odd - I've always seen OOB at the beginning. – Joe Nu tter 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these should be too hard to fix, but please make sure they are before I can support it.– Joe Nu tter 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport - no obvious prose errors that I saw, references/sources look fine to me. Just a couple things (this version): ref #5, can we get "pp." instead of "p."? (there is more than one page in #5) Also, perhaps refs #63 and 64 would be better served as notes (see WP:REFGROUP)? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support I just glanced through the article, reading it and the references quickly, but my initial opinion is that everything is in order and up to par. I will take a closer look later this evening if time permits. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article which meets all the criteria. My only comment is that 'The battle is noted as the most significant defeat for the Royal Navy between the American Revolutionary War and the First World War.' needs a citation and the use of 'is noted' is needlessly imprecise - can you say whether this is the general view of historians? Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.