Talk:Newfoundland expedition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Newfoundland expedition was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 20, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know


St John and St John's are two totally different cities. This article uses the two names interchangeably, which is confusing. (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Article naming[edit]

Considering that we have a Raid on Newfoundland (1702), and also the Avalon Peninsula Campaign (which has a redirect from Raid on Newfoundland (1696)), should this be renamed? I'm thinking that Raid on Newfoundland (or Newfoundland expedition) ought to be a disambiguation page pointing to all of these, unless there's a case to be made that one of them is more prominent than the others. Magic♪piano 14:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Fort Amherst?[edit]

Why are the links to Fort Amherst (and the photo thereof) to a place on Prince Edward Island, when the text refers to Newfoundland? Magic♪piano 03:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Interesting article, I have the following comments/suggestions for improvement, that you might like to consider (as they go beyond the GA criteria, I have kept them separate to the GA review):

  • the addition of a map that shows various locations mentioned in the text would help the reader conceptualise where the action took place;
  • in the infobox, the only date provided is 28 August 1796, but from the text it seems the expedition lasted beyond this date. You might consider adding a date range by specifying the end date. For instance "28 August – 15 November 1796";
  • in the infobox there is "Gov James Wallace", but then in the text "Governor John Wallace" and then "new Governor, Admiral Sir Richard Wallace" - are these three different people?
  • in the lead, "in the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador and Saint Pierre and Miquelon" should probably be "along the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador and Saint Pierre and Miquelon";
  • considering adding the {{convert}} template to distances as this will convert miles to kilometres for those that can't conceptualise one unit over the other. For instance typing "{{convert|18|mi|km}}" will produce "18 miles (29 km)";
  • in the Background section, is there a word missing here: "by which the latter power was to have in readiness to assist the French a fleet". Have what in readiness?
  • what are "sail of the line"? If terms like these are going to be used, they either need to be explained or linked, as the lay person will not understand them;
  • what does this mean: "could only oppose the old Romney of 50 guns, two 32's and two 16's" (what is a 32, what is a 16?). I assume they are ships with 32 guns and ships with 16 guns, but I might be wrong, and I suspect that the average reader will not know what is meant here. Thus, I think it needs to be explained, or linked. Also, the use of the possessive apostrophes is incorrect, as there is no possession to indicate, thus if you are going to use the term it should just be "two 32s and two 16s";
  • per WP:SURNAME, a person should be referred to by title/rank and full name on first mention, and then surname from then on. Currently, there are a number of instances of "M.Richery", "Admiral Richery", "Vice-Admiral Wallace", "Admiral Murray", "M. Allemand", etc.
  • "As they came within the range of those twenty-four pounders at Fort Amherst" - why "those"? This implies that the guns have already been mentioned, but they havent'. Thus it should probably just be: "As they came within the range of the twenty-four pounders at Fort Amherst";
  • is it "Bulls Bay", "the bay of Bulls", "Bay of Bulls" or "Bay Bulls"? Currently all four versions are being used in the article, which makes it a little confusing. Consistency in terminology is important;
  • there appears to be a mixture of past and present tense being used. For instance in the Chateau Bay section, words like "detaches", "does" are present tense, but "proceeded" etc. are past tense;
  • This is not grammatically correct: "Admiral Richery that had threatened St. John's". Perhaps try: "Admiral Richery who had threatened St. John's";
  • I suggest wikilinking, or explaining nautical terms like "hove to", tacking etc.;
  • some of the language seems a bit dated, for instance "made a great many prisoners". This should probably just be: "took a large number of prisoners". Also, "claiming the islands to France", should probably be "claiming the islands for France";
  • if possible, I suggest trying to add some more detail to the Bulls Bay section, it seems small. Perhaps this could be achieved by inserting the block quote into the paragraph and attributing it in the prose;
  • in the Raid on Saint Pierre section, is this a typo: "and 80.000 quintals" - should it be "and 80,000 quintals"? (comma instead of full stop);
  • Note # 5 "Memoirs Of Don Manuel De Godoy: Prince Of The Peace (1836)" - this doesn't appear in the References list, is there full bibliographic information that could be added? Also, for consistency, it should be formatted the same as the other Notes using the short citation style in the Notes, and then long citation style in the References;
  • in the References there are two works by Tocque, but the short citations don't make it clear to which one they are refering. As such, if possible you should denote the work by either using the year, e.g. Tocque 2009, p. 1, or the title: e.g. Tocque, Newfoundland, p. 1;
  • the Chateau Bay section is completely uncited. It requires at least one citation at the end of the paragraph if all of the information is sourced to a single work. If multiple sources have been used, however, then citations should be added in the appropriate sections;
  • in the References the work by Marley is presented but doesn't appear to be cited specifically in the Notes;
  • in the References section, some of the works are missing bibliographic details. For instance, the Burke work is missing a year, publisher, publisher location, etc. The first Tocque work is missing a year and publisher location;
  • OCLC numbers could be added for the works without ISBNs, these can be found by searching;
  • was the 2009 Tocque book first published in 2009, or was it in 1846? indicates that it might be a reprint. If it is a reprint, it should be acknowledged by using square brackets. e.g. "Tocque, Philip. (2009) [1846]. Wandering Thoughts, or Solitary Hours. Old Classics. OCLC 456697356".

Anyway, good work so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Newfoundland expedition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 00:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The 2nd-5th sections should become 3rd level under a section header labeled Battle.
  • Everything in the lead (including infobox) needs a supporting sentence (with citation) in the body.
  • Lead is overly large for such a small article. WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 00:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from DustFormsWords[edit]

Could I suggest that the section header "Bull's Bay" is an inappropriately short section (being one sentence) and should be merged to another section? And also that the quote in that section does not comply with our policy on quotes (incorporated under criterion 2(b) of the GAC) in that it is a full sentence quote not attributed in the article body, and that it makes inappropriate use of the pull-quote format and should instead be regularly incorporated into the article prose. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Failed as unresponsive and grossly unready. The last few sections need expansion and differ between the two Tocques in the citations. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)