Talk:Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA.

My most basic issue is the length and detail of the article. It is quite interesting and very well written. However, a third of the article is a prelude to Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean. Much of the rest of the article, although very detailed, is a summary of other articles about Linois's voyages. Therefore, the article seems to cover several subjects and not retain a focus on Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean. Should it be divided into more than one article?

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the article, I know its a monster (although not as long as the one I'm currently working on, that one keeps growing and growing). I'm a bit confused by your question - Linois's expedition began when he left France in 1803 and continued until he was captured in the Atlantic on his way home in 1806. All of the intervening time, including the time in the Atlantic and the brief period in the South China Sea were part of the same expedition that was principally focused in the Indian Ocean - there are three daughter articles, all of which are about particular incidents that occurred during the expedition, not seperate unrelated operations, and which are summarised in the article to a level that I think supports the rest of the text. In that sense it is divided into more than one article, the other articles all supported by this one about the overall campaign. Can you explain a bit more clearly what you mean? (P.S. Thanks for the copyedit) --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My basic problem is with the focus. I understand that everything in one way or another is related to the Indian Ocean expedition. But a halt has to be called somewhere. I reviewed two of your other articles on Linois, (Battle of Vizagapatam and Action of 13 March 1806) so I understand that it all "relates". But it is very hard, as a reader, to monitor all of the detail and to keep in mind the overall point of the article. (By the way, I understand now why Napoleon was so disgusted with him.) I will promote the article, despite my reservations, as it is an excellent narrative, but it does require quite a bit from the reader. I am asking to consider making the article more laser-like and focused on the important overall story, especially as you have the other articles about the specific incidents. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I may seem a bit dense here, but I'm still not clear on what you are asking me to do - are you suggesting that there are sections that could be cut down (specifically the ones for which articles already exist)? Or are you saying that the level of detail is such that an average reader will become lost and confused by everything that is happening?--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am dropping my concern. It is an excellent article, extremely well written. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Extremely well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers the major areas in context b (focused): Focused
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable
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: Pass

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for this, I know the article is something of a beast, but I wanted it to be detailed but readable and that meant including a lot of information. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]