Talk:Newfoundland expedition (1702)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Newfoundland expedition (1702)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • First sentence of lead - it would probably be best to make it explicit what country/general area of the world this was in. Not all readers will know where Newfoundland is, and many will probably have no idea where Saint Pierre is.
   • Background, "Newfoundland also became a target, when on 9 June" The "when" sounds odd to me, where it's placed - perhaps "and" would be better here?
   • Background, "Newfoundland had been the site of much conflict during King William's War." Dates for context?
   • Background, "French and Indian forces of Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville" "Led by", instead of "of"?
   • Newfoundland, "French ship from Martinique," Unless he took a brief detour to check out the palm trees and banana plantations, this link might need to be changed :)
   • Newfoundland. You give the initial name of a ship as "HMS Montague", but then in the Newfoundland and Cruising... sections name it several times as the "Montagu". Are these the same ship or two different ships?
   • Saint Pierre, "They then deposited 52 French prisoners they had taken on Newfoundland" Any idea why they took them to Newfoundland?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Are there really no newer sources for this expedition? It's a bit odd to have all of the book sources and more than more than 2/3 of the overall sources be from 1920 or before - over 90 years old.

   As far as I know, the Leake biography is the only source that treats this campaign in any detail (probably because Leake's report is probably the only detailed account of it). Military history of Newfoundland in general is pretty hard to come by, beyond d'Iberville's 1696 expedition. (This deficiency is complicating work I'd like to do on other events as well.) For example this 2009 history of Newfoundland doesn't even mention either Costebelle or Subercase, the last two governors of Plaisance and both military commanders. Prowse, despite his age, is of fairly high quality, reprinting numerous primary materials, as well as extracts of earlier historians like Charlevoix. Magic♪piano 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Do we have any sources that describe this expedition from the French point of view? Were any civilians killed? Was there any winter deprivation in the area due to the infrastructure being destroyed? Did they send any ships out after Leake's fleet? It looks like Leake was in the area for over a month, did the French just do nothing and let him destroy their settlements and steal their ships?

   • I've searched places that conventionally mention events of interest (Canadian archive reports, for example) for reference to French mention of this action. These sources all came up dry; the DCB biography of Costebelle mentions that he was alerted to the English presence, but is not specific as to any measures he (which would, given the force disparity, be of a defensive nature). Most of the ships taken would have been lightly-armed fishing vessels, no match for the ships of the line. One more modern source I've located mentions that the French navy was relatively weak, and no fleets were sent during the war to defend French colonial interests (they were sent to cover Spanish treasure fleets and engage in public-private raiding expeditions to the Caribbean). Magic♪piano 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but I have a few questions regarding prose, references and coverage. I'm placing the article on hold to allow time for these comments to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing, it is much appreciated. I think I've addressed your concerns on the prose; as I mention above, I understand that the sourcing is not ideal, but modern detailed accounts of this and other elements of Newfoundland history appear to be somewhat thin. (Oh, and Martinique was not in error; French inter-colonial trade, you know.) Magic♪piano 19:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the rephrasing. I read it as "he went to Martinique and took the ship" not "he took a ship that came from Martinique". I'm still curious as to why the took prisoners off one island and dumped them on another, but apparently satisfying my personal curiosity is not a requirement for GA status :) No problem on the sources, if they can't be found, then there's nothing much you can do. I had a quick look and couldn't find anything recent and relevant. I'm now passing this article to GA status - nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the prisoners were dumped on St. Pierre because it's a small island where they wouldn't be able to cause trouble (at least until after the fleet left). Magic♪piano 22:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)