Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Cádiz (1669)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *Tea time 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]

This is a decent article, and seems fairly comprehensive. I don't anticipate many problems getting this listed. Some quibbles:

  • Images. One image is used twice. Given that this is a fairly short article with only two different images, the double use is quite obvious. Using the image twice is not a GA issue, but I raise it as a general talking point. On the one hand it is useful to have the image close by the discussion of it. On the other, the image is not far away when it is at the top. One suggestion may be to have a link to the image from the words - "an engraving of the battle". The Kirkall image could then be brought down into the appropriate section - at the moment it is placed in the proceeding section to that in which it is discussed. The Kirkall image could do with a better caption, per WP:Caption. SilkTork *Tea time 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will check it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section nearly always needs attention in a GAN. This GAN is no different! See WP:Lead. The lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the topic. As a rough guide, the important information from each section should be summarised in the lead. If there is a section on the date dispute, then the date dispute should be mentioned in the lead. There is a long and detailed background section - the important details from that section should be summarised and placed in the lead. SilkTork *Tea time 17:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is good. I'm doing a bit of copy-editing as I go through, rather than list minor items here. Any problems with my edits, please amend or raise the issue here. I have a question about the use of "pink" and "ketch" in the same sentence about the same vessel. That needs clarifying for those, like me, not familiar with nautical terms. If they mean the same thing, then it may be better to use just one term, preferably with a quick definition - such as "accompanied by a pink - a small ship with a narrow stern". If they mean different things, then winkilink both terms, and explain both terms. See WP:Jargon for more info. SilkTork *Tea time 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pink and the ketch are two different ships, but I think I see the place where there is confusion, and I'll fix it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is relevant - without mentioning it somewhere, there is no context for the part in "aftermath" about the fund for the redemption of slaves, which redeemed KD's people first because they had fought well. It could be mentioned there first, but it does need to be mentioned somewhere. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will fix. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hollar has explained earlier that "having found 22 Turks aboard her; and three Christians, one a Russian, and two Englishmen, we transported them aboard us, and sent other men aboard her". SilkTork *Tea time 22:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you're right; I'll correct that again. (I wish there were more secondary sources.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement that "the painting may depict a later stage of the battle" appears to come from one person's view. It would be appropriate to name the person and the source in the article - "Leonard George Carr Laughton in "The Mariner's Mirror" in 1926 suggested that the painting may show the closing stages of the battle....". This is clearly showing who is saying what. I had to track down the source to make sure it wasn't you saying it. SilkTork *Tea time 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. Will fix. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is used to attest the Monamy and van de Velde paintings of the action, giving the 8th for one and the 28th for the other. The Monamy one is the one described at length whose provenance is debated; I think the van de Velde one is the one you linked below.
The sources used in the article are all the sources I could find on the battle, and I've pretty much wrung every detail I could out of them. I don't think, then, that there's a source commenting on the date discrepancy in other sources - is it wrong to say "some sources give this date and some give that"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look over it and see what I can do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify which parts are interpretations or appear to be interpretations, so I can either correct them to the source or remove them? (As I said, I wish there were more secondary sources - I use what I can, like Sea Fights, but they often give less detail.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of challengable statements which are not cited. These tend to be the ones that are derived from the primary source. A possible solution would be to quote from the source directly, as from a novel or film when describing the plot. See Wikipedia:Quotations. Example: According to Hollar, they "took and made prize of her, and having found 22 Turks aboard her ... we transported them aboard us, and sent other men aboard her".<ref name="Robinson">{{Cite journal |title=The Fight of the Mary Rose |last=Robinson |first=C.N. |journal=Mariner's Mirror |volume=12 |year=1926 |pages=97–100 |url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fight_of_the_Mary_Rose}}</ref> Be aware, though, of overusing the quotes. SilkTork *Tea time 10:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you specify which are the ones that need citations? The article text, at least the part on the battle, follows Hollar fairly closely, so in most cases it's that I didn't want to put the same citation after every sentence - let me know and I'll add some in. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be allowable? I wasn't sure because I'm aware that in the US, a copy of a PD two-dimensional work is itself not copyrightable, but there's a copyright notice on the page. I'm not too well-versed in these issues, and I'd love to add another image if I could. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the copyright has expired. You can upload to Commons. Use {{PD-old-100}}, and link to the website as the source. The copyright tag they have placed on the image is inappropriate as the image is now in the public domain. Check first in Commons that the image hasn't already been loaded. SilkTork *Tea time 15:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC) The {{PD-Art}} template is also appropriate. SilkTork *Tea time 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am satisfied that the article covers the significant events and provides enough information to satisfy the general reader, and that it doesn't go into excessive detail on any aspect. I am also satisfied that the tone is neutral and sober and appropriate for an encyclopedia. SilkTork *Tea time 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

This is a very pleasant, informative and useful article which is capable of meeting GA criteria with a little more work. I'll put on hold for an initial seven days to allow time for the work to be done. Points to work on are:

  1. Provide adequate caption for mezzotint image
  2. Reduce use of jargon, or where unavoidable or inappropriate, provide a short plain English definition next to the first use of the jargon term
  3. Build lead so that it provides a summary of all important details in the article
  4. Either provide a reliable secondary source for the action, or quote selectively from the primary source, avoiding editorial interpretation. Remember to use inline cites for any statements that could be challenged. The amount of use of citations is often disputed, though when quoting from a primary source, each instance of a quote must be cited.
  5. The Date section is problematic regarding sources and interpretation of sources. For example, it seems to be using this as saying that the action took place on the 8th - when it appears that the source is indicating that the event started on the 8th and finished on the 18th, which is in line with Hollar. There doesn't appear to be a reliable source for the speculation on the reason for the apparent date discrepancy. It may be better to remove the date section until a reliable source can be found which directly comments on the apparent discrepancy.

Please ping me if there are any questions or problems. SilkTork *Tea time 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re 5, NMM source - that makes sense. Should we then treat the date as being the 18th-19th, per Hollar etc., or what other date? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, treat the date as Hollar. If there are obvious variations, but no reliable source has commented on them, then you can do a footnote as we did with George Harrison's name. SilkTork *Tea time 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that works. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "primary source and makes interpretations from this source" comment is related to the use of Hollar - I suggested this: "A possible solution would be to quote from the source directly, as from a novel or film when describing the plot. See Wikipedia:Quotations. Example: According to Hollar, they "took and made prize of her, and having found 22 Turks aboard her ... we transported them aboard us, and sent other men aboard her".[1] Be aware, though, of overusing the quotes." You then asked: "Could you specify which are the ones that need citations?", and were concerned about citing each sentence. I would return you to what I said about using quotations for the main details, and each quote would need citing, and avoiding making interpretations from Hollar. If another source has made interpretations or reports Hollar, then you could also use that source. When third party sources, especially multiple third party sources, say the same thing about an incident, then it is regarded as fact, and can be presented as such - unless another source contests the reports. But when you have only one source, and it is the primary source, then it has to be presented as the source giving the information rather than it is accepted fact.
In short - if the detail is only found in Hollar, then do not present it as established fact, present it as Hollar's report, and cite Hollar.
Essentially, unless the relevant part of Hollar's report has been verified by a reliable third party it cannot be used as undisputed fact, but must be presented as coming from Hollar's report.
I hope that's clear - if not, let me know, and I'll try again. SilkTork *Tea time 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added "Hollar says" or some such to parts where Hollar's account was cited and was the only source that gave this information. Are there any places you think need more citations? I know you said the main details, but do tell me where I should add more citations. :) Do you think the other issues you named have been addressed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Should the article then be moved back to "Action of 18 December..."? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with military history naming conventions - the title works OK for me as December as the events described in the article cover December, but you'd need to either ask at the Military History Wikiproject, or see what reliable sources say - or do both. Yes, I am aware that there are not many sources, but there are some, and a quick glance seems to indicate that the Mary Rose name is used, as in "The Fight of the Mary Rose", "The ‘Mary Rose’ action, 8-18 December 1669", and "Action between HMS 'Mary Rose' and seven Algerines, December, 1669". Would it be: Mary Rose action, December 1669 or Action of Mary Rose, December 1669? SilkTork *Tea time 10:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) suggests the use of where and what, but as sources are using who, what and when it seems appropriate to stick with sources. SilkTork *Tea time 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... not sure what happens to a GA review when the article name is changed. Should I hold off moving it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better to move it now as it saves paperwork afterwards. What title are you moving it to? SilkTork *Tea time 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Cádiz (1669). Are the other issues with sourcing/citing/OR resolved (and so will everything be A-OK after the move?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look at the article shortly to see if the GAN can be closed. Moving the article during the GAN is fine, and won't impact on the GA criteria. I note that the matter has been discussed, and Battle of Cádiz (1669) has consensus. SilkTork *Tea time 11:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the move. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When moving a title, it sometimes asks if you also want to move subpages. That's almost always a yes, so that archive pages and GANs, etc are moved as well. It's easy to miss. No worries, I've now moved the GAN page so it matches up. SilkTork *Tea time 14:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]
....I also hope that my removal of the flag in the infobox has staved off a potential edit war over which flag to use, and that the users will discuss it at a noticeboard instead. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, wikilinking to the Regency of Algiers, as you suggested, is more appropriate.
About the flag, I think that, on WP, it used to show the flag representing the Country involved in a battle or in a war, and as far as I know, the Regency of Algiers was an Ottoman province (Vilayet), even if de facto it was more like a vassal state than a simple province, but it was not an independent/sovereign country, then I can't see why should we consider it differently?
Omar-Toons (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since we don't have any sources explicitly stating which flag Algiers used in 1669, we should either use the flag our primary and secondary sources (here, the images) show the ships flying, or no flag at all. But can we move this discussion to the article talk page (not the GA review)? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This can be moved to the talkpage if wished. I don't think it impacts on GA criteria. The flags are not essential and can be removed. For purposes of clarity, the articles which are linked are best revealed. I don't see any advantage to a reader in having the link text say something different to what is linked. Algiers is a different article to Regency of Algiers, and England is a different article to Kingdom of England. SilkTork *Tea time 14:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extending hold

[edit]

When I saw this article I thought it would be a quick and easy review. It seemed neat and tidy, and the topic was small and self-contained and uncontroversial. Ah....:-) Anyway, I just thought I'd go through and do a bit of copy-editing for purposes of clarity, and build up the lead, and do any of the little things that I have suggested need doing which haven't been done. A fairly normal activity before closing a GAN. As I'm working on the prose, I check a few details, and some sources turn up which are giving more details, and saying slightly different things to the article. Two sources are indicating a different date for the expedition to Tangiers than is given in the article. This source says the meeting was delayed for eleven months (so Howard could not have arrived in July 1669 and left in December 1669). This source is indicating 1668, and saying they stayed a year and a half. Given that we are unclear about the date, and that there has been some confusion in regard to Hollar's involvement (he wasn't brought along to draw the fort, he requested to come to clarify and update the map he had started) and to if Howard met with Tafiletta, along with the earlier misreadings of Hollar's text, I'm extending the hold for another seven days to allow time for the sources to be checked to make sure there are no more factual errors. And where the sources are not clear, then the article must not attempt to assume or fill in the gaps. So:

  • Check sources carefully and ensure there are no factual errors or confusions
  • Build lead to provide an adequate summary of main points per WP:Lead
  • Ensure there are no misinterpretations of sources - quote if needed

I'll do a final check on prose when reading through again in seven days. Don't despair - the work is easier than it sounds. It just means reading through the sources again with the article in front of you, and also adding a few sentences to the lead. I'm quite happy to tidy up when I next read through, though if I encounter another error I will close this GAN as a fail of criteria 2: "factually accurate" as that will be three times I will have checked and found factual errors. Good luck! SilkTork *Tea time 14:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consuming splendor states outright that he was brought to draw the settlement at Tangier, without mentioning his request, but I'll certainly add that it was at his own request. It also says that Howard waited for a year for Tafiletta to arrive and that the failure to meet was on the latter's part. I'll alter the wording to avoid assigning blame through implication, since the sources differ on where the blame is to be assigned, and remove the date (two of the three sources seem to say it was about a year, but the Descriptive catalogue gives a year and a half, as you say). In the coming days, I'll also look over the article again to check the facts, and also see if I can squeeze a few more details out of issues of Mariner's Mirror in Google Snippet View. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished drawings also says that it was Tafiletta who would not meet with Howard, and that the thing that Howard delayed was his departure. (It gives the date of departure to Tangier in July 1669.) This article has a good deal of information on the mission - how much of it do you think necessary to include in an article on the battle?
(Also, is it worth mentioning that Howard was not picked up, as read in Unpublished drawings? It is an extraneous detail?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. This is much more awkward than it first appeared, isn't it? Yes, Consuming Splendor, does say that Howard and Tafiletta failed to meet. Though we also have the information that Howard had a letter of security from Tafiletta. Of course it is feasible that Tafiletta would be too busy or disinterested or politically disinclined to meet, but would be quite willing to provide a pass that would allow the nuisance to disappear! Anyway, I agree that there is no need to spend too long on the background. I would agree that some background info on what the ship was doing in those waters is useful, though it should be brief. I see that you shortened the url on one of the googlebooks references. That's neat - how do you know what to cut? I'd like to be able to do that as I find long urls ugly and they clog up articles when editing. I also see that you restored the Burlington Magazine cite. Generally if one cite covers the statement, that is enough. We don't tend to overload a statement with multiple cites unless the statement is particularly controversial. See WP:INTEGRITY, WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITECLUTTER. Is there something in Burlington that is not in Pennington? I can only read the first couple of sentences. SilkTork *Tea time 11:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything after the page number is a search string and can be cut. As for Burlington Magazine, it's a comparatively in-depth article on the mission, so I don't like to leave it uncited - I agree with you that a great deal of background on the mission is unnecessary (it may even merit its own article, but that isn't the question now) so should I then pull out only one detail or two and cite to the magazine? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your comment about the mission deserving its own article is the way to go. Your desire to reference the detailed source is because you want readers to know more about the mission. I have myself doubled up on sources because I found two sources that both contained interesting extra detail and I wanted to alert readers to them. And I got gently told off for it! The magazine source requires a subscription, the book has been scanned onto Google Books. If the books says what is needed, my instinct would be to go for the source that is accessible to most people. The point of the source is to verify what is being said. However, that is my personal view, and the choice of source is outside the scope of the GAN, so if you decide on the magazine as a source, that's fine. SilkTork *Tea time 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Refresh

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Article is stable. Images are OK with appropriate captions. There is a reference section. Language is clear. The main elements are included and there is no excessive detail. The article is balanced and neutral. SilkTork *Tea time 18:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


How many ships? - The Mary Rose was accompanied by three ships: a small narrow-sterned ship of shallow draught or pink, the two-masted Roe ketch which had come from England with her, and a Hamburg merchantman, called the "Hamborough frigate." SilkTork *Tea time 20:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame, as I thought this was going well, but I'm stopping the review now as a fail because I have encountered another misreading of the sources. I did give a clear warning that would happen. The article says: "When the Mary Rose and convoy found her, she had a prize-crew of 22 Algerines, as well as one Russian and two English prisoners." This is based on the source which says: "we took and made prize of her, and having found 22 Turks aboard her; and three Christians, one a Russian, and two Englishmen, we transported them aboard us".

I did earlier this evening amend one line which was interpreting from the source, but let that go. Now I have encountered this one. Editors cannot make assumptions from primary sources. I have made that clear throughout this review. There is no indication in the source which says that the Englishmen were prisoners - indeed the Algerian pirates or Barbary corsairs did include a number of Englishmen, some of them quite famous.

The material in this article which relies on the primary source of Hollar's account needs careful scrutiny. It should be rewritten to make it clear that it comes from the source, and the wording must follow exactly what the source says - no interpretation at all! If the source says they took on board three men, that is what the article should say - no assumptions should be made that the men were passengers, sailors, pirates or prisoners - it should just be reported as "men".

I haven't closely examined the Arts section, though care needs to be taken that the speculation around the painting by Elisha Kirkall does not slip into original research. SilkTork *Tea time 20:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what the source of your confusion is re: the number of ships. The Mary Rose left Tangier with the Roe, the pink, and the Hamburg merchantman. Along the way, they met the King David, the French merchantman, and the Scottish merchantman. This makes seven all together, which is the number represented in the infobox and in the image. There was also the brigantine, but they parted ways before any enemy ship was encountered, it's not in the picture, and I think it is right not to include the brigantine in an accounting of forces. What's up?
  • Fair point about the three Christians, but you corrected too far in the other direction; Hollar gives no indication that they were crew members, and indeed secondary sources like Sea Fights refer only to a prize-crew of 22 Moors.
  • Thanks for all your help, and sorry I wasn't able to bring the article up to scratch. Maybe another time when my schedule is less weird. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the ships in the infobox, it was simply a matter of differing methods of layout. Using primary sources is difficult, and unless directly quoting, can lead to some simple errors of interpretation because as experienced readers we make assumptions which may or may not be correct. This article, which appears easy to do, is actually quite difficult because of the opaque nature of the sources, their antiquity, their rarity and their subtle discrepancies. The article, because of the nature of those sources, comes up against one of our most subtle and frequently misunderstood policies, that of WP:Original research. I'm pleased you are willing to keep working at it. There are other topics which will be easier for you! Good luck! SilkTork *Tea time 08:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]

Takabeg (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the result of a discussion at WikiProject Military History. The action doesn't really have a name - it's referred to with different variations on "Kempthorne's battle with seven Algerines" or "the fight of the Mary Rose" or other titles that wouldn't really be appropriate. It used to be at "Action of 18 December 1669," and then at "Action of December 1669" because of the ambiguity over the date. During the GA review I went to that WikiProject for help, since the standard "Action of..." title format wasn't really appropriate for an action of disputed date, and they suggested "Battle of [place] ([year])" as another standard title format. I was reluctant because it sounded awfully official when that wasn't actually the name used in sources (where "Action of..." sounded less official), but it seemed to be standard enough practice. Anyway, TLDR, I talked to the people at WP:Military History who suggested this title. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Robinson, C.N. (1926). "The Fight of the Mary Rose". Mariner's Mirror. 12: 97–100.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Cádiz_(1669)/GA1&oldid=1144167092"