Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Lissa (1811)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Battle of Lissa (1811)

Toolbox

Self-nomination. An article on a little known naval action from 1811, I believe this is adequately sourced, well written and conforms to all other FAC criteria. It has passed for GA and undergone a Wikiproject peer review which generated a lot of comments. Any and all actionable suggestions welcome.Jackyd101 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: The article now has an excellent map created by User:Ruhrfisch.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the splitting of the sentence in the lead, so have made the change. Adacore (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - probably should mention that the Oxford dictionary of National biography is a subscription database, not everyone has access to it online (this doesn't mean you can't use it as a reference, just that you need to say that "subscription required" or something like that in the reference). Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Comments

  • In background a sentence or two with broader scope than is given may be useful - the fact that this was in the context of the Napoleonic Wars, for example, is only explicitly mentioned in the lead and the infobox. I'm not sure where or how this should be integrated though.
I will get on this this evening.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a little bit of trouble with how to phrase this, I'll have to think about it. Which information do you think is most relevent here?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a very minor formatting problem with the table listing Captain Hoste's squadron. The entry for the Ship HMS Volage has a slight offset in the divider between the ship and rate columns for me.
On my screen it looks fine. Do you know what might be causing it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably just IE7 being screwy, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Total crew numbers for the ships would be useful for putting the casualties in context, if they're known, but I'd guess they're probably not. Both in the tables and in the Aftermath section.
I can probably find the British, but with the French it will be difficult to find anything precise. Would this unbalance the table, or shall I go ahead and insert the British figures anyway?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think any figures would be useful here, but you might want to get advice from another editor too. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Given it has a name, I'd say "...the xebec Eugenio..." rather than "...a xebec Eugenio..."
  • The phrase "...the cannon's discharge instantly swept the bow of Favorite clear of the French and Italian boarding party." seems a little unencyclopaedic to me. Is this a direct quote from the source and/or could it be rephrased?
Although its not a direct quote, swept clean is used by at least two of the sources. I will attempt to rephrase, how is: "the cannon's discharge instantly destroying the French and Italian boarding party gathered in Favorite's bow."--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's probably a little better, but if you think the original wording was more true to the source(s) then you might want to stick to that. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly "...becoming a total wreck." seems a bit colloquial, however I suppose it may be appropriate in the case of a shipwreck?
"a total wreck" is a nautical term for a ship that cannot be salvaged and returned to service.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK - I thought that might be it.
  • In Conclusion, "...not without the death of five men and several more seriously burnt when the blazing mainmast collapsed." - Were the deaths and the burns both caused by the mainmast collapse?
I believe so. Does this needs changing at all?
Probably not, I just had to read it a few times to understand exactly what it meant. (If it wasn't the case then some clarification might've been necessary). Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence of the final paragraph of Aftermath, I'd start with "Following the battle..." or similar, and mention that the numerical superiority was of naval vessels (is it?), to put it in context.
I don't understand these points, could you clarify?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was merely trying to say that the phrase "British numerical superiority in the region was assured" is without context - is it talking about numerical superiority of men? Ships? When was it assured? As a result of the battle? Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the wording slightly. Does this work?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And in the final sentence of "Aftermath", it's unclear which action "The action..." refers to - the Battle of Lissa, or the action of 29 November 1811?
Done.
  • It might be beneficial to include the subtitle of the reference book "The Frigates" (An Account of the Lighter Warships of the Napoleonic Wars). Similarly with "The Victory of Seapower" (Winning the Napoleonic War 1806-1814).
Done.

Adacore (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have either addressed your points, will address them soon or have asked for further information. Your interest is much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help - I've provided what clarification I can. I hope it's useful. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I made a few tweaks that might improve the flow for us on the other side of the pond. My only concern is the large format of the Order of Battle. Perhaps this could be re-arrange to reduce it's size? Other than that it's a great article, and I support FA even with the current OoB. Maury (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, I reverted one or two of your changes (mainly where you changed British spellings to American), but your edits and comments have really improved the article. I'm not a genius at tables I'm afraid, how would I go about shrinking the table to see what it looks like?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Geez, I wish I knew! I simply avoid tables whenever possible, which I'm afraid won't be terrible helpful. Maury (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, perhaps it should simply be moved to the bottom of the article? That seems fairly common in similar articles, and I don't believe it would effect the flow negatively. Maury (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - excellent prose. I can find no definite problems at all. Only one thing I'm confused about, and that's probably just my ignorance of the subject: Erm, naval action? That's really standard terminology for a conflict at sea? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. There are a number of terms that can be used (battle, engagement etc.), but action is certainly widely used in the sources. Thankyou very much--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)