Talk:Battle of Kinburn (1855)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kinburn (1855)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I will be taking on the review of this article for GA. Expect a full review to be up either today or tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor comments; My concerns have been addressed. "They then fought their way to the main Russian naval base on the peninsula, the city of Sevastopol, which they then placed under siege." -> They then; they then -> The army then fought their way to the main Russian naval base on the peninsula, the city of Sevastopol, (which they placed under siege. Or. which was then besieged.) "the only purpose of te operation" -> the only purpose of the operation "medium-caliber guns and smaller" -> medium-caliber and smaller guns. Or. medium and small caliber guns. "Bazaine's infantry conducted a reconnaissance toward Kherson..." -> Bazaine's infantry conducted reconnaissance towards Kherson... "the following year, to strengthen..." -> the following year to strengthen... "Bruat informed his superiors that "Everything may..." -> Bruat informed his superiors that "[e]verything may..." Good points, they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fixed. There is a dab link; "... seize the Russian fort at Kinburn, which protected ...", Kinburn links to a disambiguation page, needs fixing. Done. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All the references are in the article in their appropriate sections.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A couple minor issues; "Quoted in Wilson, p. XXXVI" <- no need to place quoted in the citation -> "Wilson, p. XXXVI". Other than that, no issues here. Citation 2, Lambert p. 269, should be Lambert p. 269-270. Part of the information for the citation is on the next page in the first paragraph. Both corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	I have managed to access two of the sources and can confirm that the material in the article is an accurate reflection of the material in the source. I say reflection because the editor has used significant paraphrasing.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig had nothing to compare the article too, and, my own comparisons of the source material and the article show very different styles of writing. The information is ostensibly the same, but, written in one's own words.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the main components of the topic, 1. The pre-battle background, 2. The battle and 3. The post-battle events.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is well-focused on the topic it discusses.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is written in a neutral tone and with balanced use of sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition with no on-going content disputes and no outstanding issues on the talk page that need addressing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Appropriately tagged images. Images that need appropriate tags; [File:French ironclad floating batteries at Kinburn 1855.jpg] The above image needs its {{PD-art}} tag correct to remove the error with {{PD-1923}} in this case. [File:Attack on Kinburn.jpg] The above image needs to be tagged with {{PD-1923}}, all images need a PD designation that is applicable to the U.S. [File:HMS Warrior 1872.jpg] The above image needs its {{PD-art}} tag corrected to identify it as PD in the U.S. All corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images have appropriate captions and are relevant to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some minor issues that need addressing. Passes GA

I will be using the above table for my review so you can expect my comments to be under the appropriate criterion. If something is affected between two or more criterion then I will place it under one and make a note under the others. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Parsecboy, a fine article you have here, only a few minor issues to the prose, a dab, a citation question and some image tags that need fixing. The images themselves are fine, but, they lack the correct tags to identify them as such. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thanks for your thorough review of the article. I think everything has been corrected. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

Clearing up numbers here: 8,000 British & French troops

British

• 6 ships of the line
• 17 Frigates & sloops
• 10 gunboats
• 6 bomb vessels
• 10 transports

French

• 4 Ships of the line plus
• 3 floating batteries.
• 3 Corvettes
• 4 Avisos
• 12 gunboats
• 5 bomb vessels

Hope this helps are these figures confirmed. Which nation had more troops? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Order of combatants

French commanders directed the battle on land and sea. They should be listed first. Listing the less senior force first is not standard practice, regardless of the number of ships involved. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it works in other wiki articles I'm afraid. I make an example: D-Day. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and ironically, a field marshal outranks a 4-star, despite the command arrangement. And best of all, it doesn’t even support your position - 73,000 Americans landed at Normandy, compared to 61,000 British troops. By your argument, the Yanks should be listed first. You want to go change the box there? Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious?? Again not how it works; let my divulge - you forget the naval element of the force: the ships are included that means their crews are as well. In case of D-Day (& I digress) out of the 195,000 Navy personnel in total; 158,000 of them British not to mention of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wonder why the box doesn’t list them... Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Any idea why the Axis forces aren’t listed by size of forces committed at the Battle of Stalingrad? Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Or why the French fleet isn’t factored into the ranking at Siege of Yorktown? Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

And damnit, 25,000 Brits are more important than 50,000 Prussians at the Battle of Waterloo. I can’t for the life of me figure out why Wellington gets first billing. It’s almost like lots of other editors disagree with your opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it ill it be at some point, wiki has a long way to go. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh, so an example that agrees with you is evidence that you’re correct and examples that don’t are just wrong. Amazing how conveniently that works out. Are we done here? Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Man, the classics aren’t safe either - Leonidas gets pride of place at the Battle of Thermopylae despite providing only 5% of the Greek force. Real head-scratcher there. Parsecboy (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Haha can you imagine changing the Yorktown article to factor in French fleet & the sailors (there's nearly 12,000) That would be interesting to see the result. As for Waterloo I'd check the talk page? (factoring in the Prussians turned up right at the end?). As for Stalingrad the Italians should be second no doubt about that.. thanks for pointing these out! Makes for intresting scope on this discussion about numbers - I might make an attempt to change these soon. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

So you concede there are factors apart from numbers of troops committed? Oh, and what would’ve happened at Waterloo if the Prussians hadn't shown up late in the day? Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really no.. the number of troops; as in army, navy & air force in total, present at a battle/siege should be at the top of infobox - period. There have been cases where it was done alphabetically (can't remember) but that got thrown out quickly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

So you’re going to “fix” the Yorktown, Waterloo, and Thermopylae articles now, then? Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and World War I too, right? Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly will. Watch this space. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Pacific War - your workload is starting to get large. No reason to draw any conclusions from that eh? Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Front (World War I) - man, it sure isn’t hard to find examples like these... Parsecboy (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Tobruk]] - should I keep going? Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Pacific War.. yes scope for that. Tobruk? What's wrong with that? Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ll say it again - so there is some other factor to consider apart from the 14 million Chinese and 3.6 million Americans? Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there? What is the preference for Americans over Chinese? Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You tell me, since you seem to be arguing that there’s something to do with the scope of the conflict. And you haven’t gone to fix that, or any of the other articles I’ve pointed out yet. Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not exactly going to change overnight though is it? We've started with this one & we've made good ground for a progressive argument with this, have we not? Perhaps I will put it to WT:MILHIST for further scope. I look forward to the outcome. Good evening. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)