Talk:Battle of Pulo Aura/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
review started --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a very nice piece of work about a long overlooked episode in the Napoleonic wars, It still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria, but these are minor and readily fixed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Writing is not one of the shortcomings, although your lead is fairly long for the length of the article. I suggest that your lead be condensed some, such as the third paragraph, which seems too detailed for a lead. "Background" doesn't really describe adequately what you've accomplished in your first section: what you do here is set up the importance of the British trade with the east, and the importance Napoleon saw in undermining it. Perhaps a better heading would be appropriate (such as "The Importance of the Pacific trading")?? Finally, you've got some red links (dead links, links going no where) and although you might plan to add articles on those eventually, they are not there now.Also, a notation that the Indiamen were too cumbersome to function well in battle would be good. It wasn't just the crews and the guns...it was the ships themselves.

OK, there is a lot to get through here. 1) I agree that the lead is quite long, but you haven't explained why it is a problem - is it unclear or does it fail to provide a summary of the engagement? Is the detail distracting? Please clarify exactly what you dislike in the lead. 2) I disagree here, I think background does cover it: it is important to illustrate, in sequence, the mercantile and strategic situation in the area in 1804, the reason for the presence of Linois's squadron and finally the specific importance of this China Fleet to the British economy: this is all background to the action and is much broader than the example heading you have suggested. 3) There are deadlinks, but I don't want to remove them: they are indicators of areas that require expansion and I have already contacted other editors about filling them. 4) Do you have a source to back this up? It is probably true to an extent (although remember that a number of East Indiamen were purchased during the war and fitted out as fourth rates) however I would like to have a source that corroborates it before I add it to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Your sources are sufficient. A map of the journey, or where the battle took place, would be a good addition. You need a citation about Linois' claim.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is sufficiently broad in that you've covered the context of the battle in the larger European and global picture. You've maintained the focus on the Battle itself and it looks you're creating additional articles that will provide specific coverage of other portions of the Linois mission. You have some details in the first paragraph of the overview that might be better in the article on Dance or in in the section on the aftermath. For example:

...Linois later claimed that the unescorted British merchant fleet was defended by eight ships of the line, a claim that contemporary officers and later historians ridiculed. not only needs citation, but really would be better in the main text of your article, probably in the aftermath section, where you talk about Linois.

In another example, this would fit better into the main text, in the narrative leading up to the battle. One of the most fascinating elements of this whole battle is the use of information and misinformation, :

Linois had sailed to the Indian Ocean in 1803 before the declaration of war, under orders to install garrisons in the French and Dutch colonies in the region and to prey on lightly defended British merchant shipping. One of the richest and most significant targets was the "China Fleet", an annual convoy of East Indiamen from China and other Far Eastern ports that carried millions of pounds worth of trade goods. Although these large vessels were accompanied by numerous smaller merchant ships, news of the outbreak of war had only just arrived in the Pacific and the only warship available to defend the fleet was the small HEIC armed brig Ganges. Dutch informants notified Linois of the fleet's destination and date of departure from Canton while he was anchored at Batavia on Java, and he sailed in search of the convoy on 28 December 1803, eventually discovering it in early February.

In this example, you've got a pile of misleading pronouns and modifiers. I've suggested:

Commodore Dance knew that French lookouts could, from a distance, mistake a large East Indiamen for a ship of the line, although in actuality, no warships protected the convoy. He raised flags suggesting that his fleet included part of the Royal Navy squadron operating in the Indian Ocean at the time and instructed his Indiamen and their crews to form a line of battle. Although Linois's ships were clearly superior, the British reaction unnerved him and he broke off contact.

All of this information does appear in greater detail further down the article. Are you suggesting that it is too detailed? I have also rephrased the part you added the tag to so that it better reflects the prose in the aftermath section. I don't use citations in the lead except for direct quotes or statistics.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   neutrality seems good to me.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. 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):

   this entire article would benefit from a map.

I agree, unfortunately I don't have one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This will certainly be approved, but I'd like to see you deal with the excess in the overview, and giving a greater titular emphasis to the "background"....please.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a bit vague on exactly what improvements are required, can you clarify as indicated in my replies above. Thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

okay, re the lead, it seemed there was too much detail, sometimes repetitive of some of the details you include later.

for example, possibly this, "Although he remained in command of the squadron for another two years and had some minor success against undefended merchant ships, he suffered a string of defeats and inconclusive engagements against weaker British naval forces. Ironically, Linois was captured at the Action of 13 March 1806 by a numerically superior British battle squadron that he mistook for a merchant convoy. " could be moved, or somehow incorporated, into the section Aftermath.  ??

"Dutch informants notified Linois of the fleet's destination and date of departure from Canton while he was anchored at Batavia on Java, and he sailed in search of the convoy on 28 December 1803, eventually discovering it in early February." is a level of detail that could be better incorporated into the next section...?

This lead is not as concise as you've been in other articles. Just mho.  :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reference on indiamen--it's in either Storm of Conquest, Nelson's Trafalgar, or Every man will do his duty. Not sure which one.

I think I see what your saying, although I should point out that the material you recommend for the aftermath section is actually already there. I'm a bit confused, this article is a GA here, but doesn't appear on the GA page: has it passed or not?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)