# Talk:Troude's expedition to the Caribbean

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 14–17 April 1809/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
A few small spots of prose glitches
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Concerns about the tacked on nature of the Felicitie and Furieuse section.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Specific concerns

Background:
Need to explain what "en flûte" means.
"... from whom Troude that the invasion of Martinique was already underway." I suspect you're missing a word in there ...
Iles des Saintes:
".. refusing to close with Martinique and instead anchoring..." sounds very odd to me to say "refusing to close" about an island. Suggest a different wording, perhaps "..refusing to approach..."?
I'm not sure, but I think "Cochrane was not idle however: he had sent to Martinique for a body of 3,000 men..." needs a comma after idle, and a semi-colon after however? If I'm wrong, please ignore.
Battle:
"Pompee was also badly damaged, losing nine killed and 30 wounded, including Fahie." It's unclear if Fahie was killed or just wounded.
Felicite and Furieuse:
"...spotted Furieuse to the southwest taking possession..." that just sounds weird. Obviously, he was boarding/seizing/capturing her, why not use something that conveys the fact that he was taking her in battle?
"Taking possession" is the normal way this is described in naval histories. If its essential it can be changed, but I think it works best as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It just sounded very odd to me. If this is the normal description, then it's fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
My major concern is the very tacked on nature of the Felicite and Furieuse section. The title of the article is the April action, but half the article is about two connected but separated in time actions that took place in June and July. Is there a reason that the second section isn't its own article? Some options I see are splitting off the F&F section into its own article with a small summary in this one, or you could retitle the article to include both events, maybe something about "French expedition to the Carribean in 1809". There may be other solutions also.
"French expedition to the Carribean in 1809" doesn't work, as there were at least two such operations. However, it might be better titled as "Troude's expedition to the Carribean". Would this work better? (The other operation would be "Roquebert's expedition to the Carribean" and happened in December).--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I favor the Troude's option, but if there is a compelling reason to keep the article at the current title, please feel free to tell me. I don't wanna force you to make a change you don't agree with just for a little green dot. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll go with the Troude one, I agree with your point about the article's coverage. If I do make this change, do you think the article will still cover the title subject adequately?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that I'm not very familiar with the Napoleonic wars, I would think so. You explain why it was sent, what happened to all the ships, and the aftermath. That seems to me to cover everything. The only quibble might be that second expedition that went in December, you might mention it in the aftermath bits, if it's at all connected to this expedition. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Move complete, tell me what you think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Two replies above, otherwise these have all been dealt with.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Getting technical help on the pass, as I've never done one that did a move in the middle. Want to make sure the new fangled archiving thingie works right. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for the review, very much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)