Talk:Atlantic campaign of 1806/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 'during the spring and summer of 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars.' - Repetition of 'during' would be better avoided.
 * 'n total, the campaign cost Napoleon 13 French and 12 Spanish ships, eliminating any possibility of even regional superiority at sea and therefore preventing the planned invasion' - I know it was the planned invasion of Britain, but it would be best to specify that in the text.
 * 'These were to leave Brest under cover of darkness on 13 December, under orders to strike deep into the Atlantic' - Repetition of 'under'
 * 'These were to leave Brest under cover of darkness on 13 December, under orders to strike deep into the Atlantic, intercept any merchant convoys that they encountered and to separate, one to the South Atlantic and the other to the Caribbean, there to cause as much disruption to British intercontinental trade as possible without engaging any Royal Navy force of equivalent size or larger and thus running the risk of being captured or destroyed' - It would be best to split this into two sentences, it seems a tad too long for comfortable reading.
 * 'and was then required to spend two months blockading Jamaica before cruising along the American Eastern Seaboard to Newfoundland before returning to France when food supplies ran low.' - another repetition here.
 * 'they were expected to capture more during their voyages and it was intended that their raiding operations could last as long as 14 months' - Should that read '...and it was intended that their raiding operations should last as long as 14 months'?
 * 'Allemand's squadron was on its return journey to France ' - From where? You also say 'the squadron' at the start of the section, but so far as I can see Allemand has not been mentioned previously. Perhaps a little background on where that squadron had been doing and where it had been?
 * This is discussed in the French Plans section.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened to Langford's convoy once it scattered and he turned for the Cadiz blockading forces?
 * 'Both were ordered to cruise the mid-Atlantic in search of the missing squadron' - But there were two squadrons, surely? The two that had left Brest in December before splitting up?
 * 'Within 15 minutes, Alexandre had fallen out of the line and taken Spencer with her' - As written, this made me think Spencer had been destroyed - perhaps replace 'taken...with her' with 'followed by Spencer'?
 * 'he squadron had missed opportunities at Pulo Aura and the Battle of Vizagapatam in 1804 and in 1805 against a conovy escorted by Sir Thomas Troubridge.[41] Much reduced by detachments and shipwreck, Linois's squadron now consisted only of his flagship ship of the line Marengo' - Two things. I'd suggest putting '1805' at the end of the sentence after Troubridge to avoid confusion, as both years run together and make it seem like Vizagapatam was in 1805. Secondly, 'flagship ship of the line' doesn't quite flow.
 * 'Unable to delay its departure no longer, he sent 109 large merchant ships eastwards under the protection of one small ship of the line, two frigates and two sloops, a significantly inferior force to the one under Willaumez' - Perhaps not a point at all, but is there any details on why the Admiral gave the convoy such a small force for protection?
 * Its not discussed in the sources, but almost certainly because so many other ships were diverted into chasing Willaumez.


 * In the Aftermath section, is there any chance of details on the individuals involved, ie the Captains/Admirals? Did anytying happen to Cochrane, for example, for sending such a weak force with that convoy?
 * Cochrane was knighted, promoted and won a battle off Guadeloupe in 1809, so his career did not suffer at all. I can expand this information.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Excellent and detailed article, enjoyed reading it - especially the ruse of leaving the Dutch flags up after that port had been captured! Some prose issues to work out, then I'll promote this! Skinny87 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I left some extended comments here, but apparently forgot to press save. I'll come back to this, but fortunately I did save my edits to the article itself, and eveything not commented on above has been sorted out. Many thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)