Talk:East Indies theatre of the French Revolutionary Wars

American involvement

The united states dispatched a frigate "squadron" to the East Indies as part of the Quasi War in 1800. Frigates USS Congress and USS Essex were to sail to the East Indies, convoy merchangment and hunt french privateers. Several engagements had previously been fought between French privateers and American flagged merchant vessels. USS Congress never made it to the Indian Ocean, but Essex did and it attempted to chase down Surcouf, at one point sighting Confiance, but she was able to outrun Essex. I think it is important to mention the American deployment in the article, though i don't think it is important to go do in depth into it.XavierGreen (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, give me a source and I'll incorporate it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:East Indies theatre of the French Revolutionary Wars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Please use either BrE or AmE

• Its supposed to be BrE, but its possible a spellcheck error or two crept in. I can't find them though, can you let me know were this is a problem?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• "traveled" and "defense".--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed myself.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Duplicate links to French Revolution, Dutch Cape Colony, Penang, HMS Victorious, HMS Arrogant, HMS Sybille, HMS Fox, HMS Sceptre, Houghly River, HMS Jupiter, and HMS Tremendous.

• Ok, I've eliminated the second on French Revolution, which was an error. However, the rest of these are relatively obscure links which appear in very different sections and I think that a reader would prefer to have these links where they are. As far as I understand it, the overlinking rules are guidelines subject to editor discretion rather than definitive instructions, and I'd prefer to leave these as they are.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Split the first paragraph in the lead.

   Remove the location parameter in an image if it says "right".

• I've done this, but I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary. What was harmed by leaving the "rights" in place?

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citation #115 should be a note

• Its debateable, but in every other article I've used this metric, including some featured articles, this has gone in the references (as its a reference to a source rather than commentary). I'd rather keep it where it is.

1. Sources #4 and #7 in the bibliography should have the "ref=harv" parameter removed

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   First two images in article lack U.S PD tags

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I've left a number of comments and questions - if I haven't queried the point, its been addressed. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)