Talk:Portuguese conquest of French Guiana

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Invasion of Cayenne (1809)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is an interesting read, and I don't have too much issue with the writing, beyond my relatively minor copyedits. I want to specifically complain about the lack of adequate maps in the article; someone unfamiliar with South American and Caribbean geography might have trouble figuring out where the pieces of the action took place. Cayenne and Belem are both on modern (e.g. Google) maps, which helps; A period map that actually identifies the major locations in the article would be a real help in this article. (Something along the lines of this map, but perhaps more readable.) If the fortifications at Cayenne or elsewhere have survived, a photo of them might also be nice (I didn't see any in Commons...)

I also want to probe about the sources. All of your sources are British; the primary ones on the event are older, which is not necessarily a problem (I use old sources all the time), but I personally find 19th-century sources to be somewhat nationalistic. I would look for a more modern perspective from, say, post-WW2 histories. I'm also wondering if there isn't some Portuguese or French perspective on these events that's missing. (See for example this French book, which is dedicated to this event. For example, on p. 68ff he indicates that Yeo was given charge of the expedition by the Portuguese governor of Para, and that the Portuguese rank and file didn't like him.) It seems odd to me that the captain of a British ship that appears small relative to the Portuguese contribution is in charge, and these sorts of sources might explain why.

You might also clarify the Dom Pedro's role in the affair; was she just acting as convoy security?

I'll put the nomination on hold. If you feel you need time to address my sourcing questions, just say so. Magic♪piano 17:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review. I've been very busy the last few days, so apologies for the delay in replying. In response to your comments above: Images. I searched online for images that might complement this article, but beyond the map of the fortifications, I was unsuccessful. The one you have idetified is useful and I will find a way to incorporate it into the article, but I have not seen any that are clearer and without copyright restrictions. A photograph of the fortications would indeed be nice, but I am not in a position to take one and again, I cannot find one without copyright restrictions.

In regards to the sources, French and Portuguese sources may well have additional points to make but I speak neither language and do not have access to the books you mention. There is no question that some the older sources I use have a pro-British nationalist perspective, but this does not make them inaccurate necessarily: the facts presented in the article are corroborated by at least three sources and any commentary is attributed to its author with the necessary caveats. I agree that some of the questions you raise (such as why Yeo was in command or what the role of Dom Pedro was) might be answered by such sources, but unfortunately I am not in a position to make use of them at this time.

Finally, although I appreciate your raising these issues with me, I do want to ask whether you would consider these sufficient grounds to fail this articles GA nomination. According to the GA criteria, neither images nor the depth of sourcing you are suggesting are serious enough problems to prevent GA status, and although such would certainly be required before an attempt at FAC, I believe that for GA the images and sourcing in this article are sufficient as long as there are no other major problems.

Thankyou again for the review and let me know what you think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In re images: I don't think the images are a problem as far as GA is concerned, especially with the added larger-scale map. One thing you might do with that map is to make (or have someone skilled make) a copy with markings more clearly indicating places and movements.

In re sources: I give you a pass on GA as far as the sources are concerned, because I primarily wanted to make you aware of the issue, especially if you're thinking of ACR/FAC. (Some other unanswered questions: did Portugal have other diplomatic or geopolitical motives for agreeing to this operation? Was there a quid pro quo that the British gave to get Portuguese support? I'm hardly an expert on the Napoleonic Wars, I'm unaware of the nature of the British-Portuguese relationship.) I'd recommend you try to cultivate relationships with editors conversant in the languages of the areas (and their historians) you write about. I know it's helped me in writing about Quebec, but then I've got enough French that I can do a fair amount of legwork before asking for help.

Article passes GA. Magic♪piano 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much and thankyou also for bringing up these issues, which I agree are very important for the article's future development. There is an excellent Francophone editor that I work with regularly, but he is busy at the moment and may not be able to help with this stuff in any case. There is also an excellent map maker I have worked with, but he requires already existing maps to work from and as I mentioned, I have not been able to find any suitable at this stage.

In rough answer to the questions you raised, the alliance between Britain and Portugal is the longest standing alliance in Europe (if not the world), stretching back unbroken to the 1660s. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British came to the aid of the Portuguese at the start of the Peninsula War in 1807 and it was the British Royal Navy that allowed the Portuguese Royal Family to escape capture by Napoleon's forces the following year. The Portuguese were the only nation to remain allied with Britain throughout the conflict and the alliance even continued in the First World War (when Portuguese troops fought on the Western Front alongside British and French soldiers) and World War II (when Portugal, although officially neutral, provided airbases and other non-combat support to British forces). This is obviously too detailed for the article, but I might try to find a way to incorporate it in some form. Thanks again for the review and all the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of a worldwide view on the subject

This article, though well-written, practically only touches upon the invasion carried out by British forces, all but omitting the more substantial Portuguese and Brazilian contributions. It also lacks any mention of the strategic importance for the Portuguese and French empires of a return to the Treaty of Utrecht's borders, nor does it report on the subsequent occupation of French Guyana by Portugal, which lasted for eight years. Another missing fact is the historical importance of this battle to the Brazilian Marine Corps, who view it as their victorious baptism of fire.

I'd gladly contribute myself, but I really don't have enough time ATM. hopefully someone interested on the subject will help broaden the article's scope.Missionary (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote the article in its present state, and as ayou can see above, the sources available to me were unfortunately limited to the English language, and were largely campaign histories. If you have more information please add it to the article, but if you can't spare the time, the wait for another contributor is likely to be a long one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's keep the tag, I'll see to it asap... I've only been making marginal contributions to Wikipedia for the past few months due to lack of time, but this article's now on my watch list for future work. regards Missionary (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I´m trying to contribute by solving this issue. I added some brazilian historiographical references, mentioned the event as the Brazilian Marine Corps baptism of fire and fixed some errors in the article (the contingents were lacking the land forces and counted only the naval infantry forces and sailors). -187.37.114.55 (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Invasion of Cayenne (1809)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

N As mentioned in the talk page earlier this year, this article has coverage problems. Although the content probably should be primarily focused on the accomplishments of Captain Yeo and the importance of the battle to the invading British forces, the accomplishments and contributions of Portuguese and Brazilian forces are barely mentioned. There is not enough coverage in the aftermath for the importance of this outcome to France and Portugal. There is also no coverage of the importance of the experience gained from this battle for the Brazilian force as it relates to Brazil's eventual path to independence from Portugal. The aftermath and the arrival of Topaze is also not mentioned in the lead. This article does not meet the GA criteria 1b and 3a.

The worldwide view tag has also been up for nearly a year, the editors agreed last year that coverage was a problem that would be difficult to fix given lack of sources, and there has been no attempt to improve the coverage this year. This article needs to be delisted for now. Aaron north (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)