Talk:Action of 6 April 1809/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

1. Well-written:
 * 'Despite the threat that their ships faced, communication and the transfer of supplies between France and her colonies was vital to the French war effort and the French Navy made constant attempts to evade the patrolling British squadrons' - Comma after 'war effort' ✅
 * 'This force required reinforcement and supply from France, and periodic attempts were made to reach the isolated convoy with new frigates, the first of which was on Niémen.' - I don't think 'on' is needed in the context of the sentence as it's written. ✅
 * 'carrying 40-guns' - Do you need the dash? ✅
 * 'When Niémen did emerge on 5 April, she was immediately spotted and chased, only Amethyst managing to retain contact during the night and bringing the French ship to action on the morning of 6 April' - This is a tad long and could do with breaking down into two. ✅
 * 'The ensuing battle was fiercely contested and both ships suffered severe damage and casualties.' - I think something like 'heavy casualties' is needed to clarify here. Doesn't sound quite right as it is. ✅
 * 'In January 1809, John Tremayne Rodd, captain of the frigate HMS Indefatigable of the Inshore Squadron, obtained information that Niémen was preparing to sail from Brest' - Do we know where this info came from?
 * Sadly we don't, I have not been able to discover this information anywhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'intention of escaping the British haunted Bay of Biscay and reaching the open Atlantic' - Haunted is kinda peacock-y
 * I'm not sure its peacocky exactly, but it may be unencyclopedic, ✅


 * 'inflicting a devastating raking fire on the French ship which caused terrible damage' - Terrible is okay, but devestating needs rewording, I think.
 * I'd like to make a case for devestating here: raking fire could (and in this case did) inflict enormous damage and casualties on a wooden warship, sufficient in some cases to decide a battle (although not entirely in this case). For example, the damage inflicted by a single raking volley from HMS Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar inflicted over 200 casualties on the French flagship and is often cited as a direct cause of her sinking several days later. I think that devestating is not overstating the effect of the tactic in this instance.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, ruling accepted :)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Do we know why Rodd wasn't given the task of attacking Niemen?
 * I don't. I think it can be assumed (although not sourced at the moment), that Indefatigable was not excluded from the pursuit of Nieman if an opportunity arrived and probably remained off Brest during the period in question, but that her role in the inshore squadron was more important than the defeat of a single enemy frigate (see Action of 13 January 1797 for an example of what this huge frigate could do). Seymour was specifically despatched to hunt Nieman because that was his specialty, just as close blockade was Todd's (and Indefatigable ' s).


 * 'The report, which was later used by Mends in his dispute with Seymour, claimed that Niémen had not only been largely undamaged before Arethusa's arrival, but that Seymour had actually surrendered to the French captain before Mends arrived. This story, almost totally invented, was widely believed in France at the time.[16][11]' - Can you put all of the footnotes in chronological order, please, low to high? ✅

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * Passes

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

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

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * Passes

A good article, requires some prose editing, but otherwise fine to pass as a Good Article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welp, everything seems done to me, I'll pass this now. Skinny87 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)