Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1

If this page is going to be Deleted, please move discussions to the Battle of the Thousand Islands talk page. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Thousand Islands[edit]

I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed...Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good to me. I have made some minor formatting corrections. Maybe it could be expanded with the importance of this battle within the war. JoaoRicardo^talk 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update to inline citations would be needed before FAC. Some external links and more pictures would be nice (a map!). And while nice, it is rather short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A map would go a long way towards providing a better sense as to where are of the landmarks referenced in the article are located. Though it is not in itself something that will keep the article from becoming Featured, there are plenty of "red links", which is particularly frustrating since many of them refer to places and there's no links or map to reference them against. The article is also on the short side; suggest adding more info as to the events and preparation that led to the battle, more info on the context of this battle in general to the Battles of the French and Indian War (some possible ideas: was this the only naval engagement? why was this battle so one-sided? are there any interesting archeological studies of the battle area and did they find anything new?) You might also want to investigate some additional online sources of info to flesh out the article further. Good job though! Captmondo 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a map by Puochot that i've seen in a couple of books that would be useful if i could find an electronic copy. Thomas Davies apparently also has a map detailing Amherst's route: [1] does any one know how I would go about getting a scaned electronic copy of this? is it free? it would be Public Domain correct?Mike McGregor (Can) 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the map was created in the late 1700s, it should fall under the rules of Public Domain, which is basically the end of the author's life plus 70-100 years, depending on the country of origin. Getting a scan of it is another thing entirely—though you might want to see if it appears in one of the historical map listings you can find under External References under Map. And though I can't currently track it down, I believe there is a place somewhere on Wikipedia where you can request others to make a relevant map for you. Hope that helps a bit! Captmondo 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good article. I am not familar with warfare in this era. Giving some historical warfare context section would help modern readers, but I do not have a good suggestion and that topic needs its own article. You can see my specific questions Wendell 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The seige last 5 days, from 19/20 August til 24 August. How could a small fort with wooden stockades, five cannons and 200 soldiers hold out for 5 days, against 50+ British guns? Especially when British "hot shot" started fires within the fort? Bravey? Strong defensive position?
Where there any ground engagements (assaults) from 20 august til 25 August? I gather no, since the British casualties are so small.
If 375 out of 400 French forces were killed or wounded, why did the seige not end until Pouchot ran out of ammunition for his guns and asked for terms?
Where any men within rifle range? (Again a map would help) What is the relative range of rifles vs guns in this era?

The fort would have been in range of cannon fire but the "rifles" (actually muskets) had an effective range of just 100 or 200 meters. A small fort could take a pounding from cannon and hold out (a) because the cannon were relatively small field pieces being dragged by an army operating in a wilderness area and from small boats and (b) because the wooden palisades of this type of fort could easily be fixed in lulls in the bombardment. Lafarge Dodger 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]