Talk:Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811/GA1

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

1. Well-written:
 * 'deploy substantial frigate squadrons' - Could substantial be replaced with 'numerous' or the like, as substantial doesn't quite seem right.
 * Substantial is better than numerous: each side had only one frigate squadron in the campaign, but the squadrons both had, comparatively, a lot of ships.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'the most notable of which was a fleet of small vessels run by the noted Robert Surcouf.' - Notable seems slightly peacock, can you expand on why he's notable or remove the word? ✅ (not really the place for further elaboration on Surcouf).
 * 'Captain Pierre Bouvet in the ex-Portuguese Minerve' - If this is the Portuguese 52-gunner previously named, can it be mentioned it was renamed? ✅
 * 'As the French ships entered the channel. As the French passed the fort, Willoughby sprang his trap and opened fire' - Probably obvious what needs fixing here :) ✅
 * 'but a false French tricolour flying from Île de la Passe accidentally ignited a ready magazine in the fort, causing severe damage and casualties' - Can you clarify how this occurred? How did it ignite the magazine, being a flag? I'm guessing it was on fire somehow? ✅
 * 'Willoughby managed to mitigate some of the effects' - How did he do this, and what effects? ✅
 * 'and was chased back to Saint Denis by Hamelin's flagship' - This needs to be consistent - you don't name Venus hedre, but you do a few sentences later. ✅

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * 'the most notable of which was a fleet of small vessels run by the noted Robert Surcouf.' - Can we have a citation, please?

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:
 * File:Combat_de_Grand_Port_mg_9425.jpg - This confuses me. How can it the uploader's own work, it looks like a very old painting?
 * Changed the tag to the correct one, no idea why they added the tag they did.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An excellent article, just has a few prose issues and that image to sort out. Skinny87 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, hopefully this is now acceptable for GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All good, I'll pass it now! Skinny87 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)