To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Oppose, this article is about the British attack on Fort Elmina while the Gold Coast Expedition article is about the campaign as a whole.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Support When I created this article, I did so under the assumption (based on the sources I consulted) that the expedition only had one major event (the attack on Fort Elmina) and a bunch of minor ones. I personally think that if both articles are properly elaborated, (to B/GA level) they would overlap to the point of practical redundancy, since the context around the attack on Fort Elmina would properly entail describing the rest of the expedition, and there does not appear to be a great deal of tactical information on the Fort Elmina action or the minor ones. I don't particularly care which way they get merged. Magic♪piano 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)