This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Elleman alludes to some Chinese ships being damaged. One British account you quoted notes their sails being holed. If there were, in fact, some ships damaged, could this be reflected in the infobox?
While it is noted that the battle ended in a stalemate, the official Chinese report as a victory (and the cultural reasons why) is not mentioned. Elleman also notes that this was the reported first of the "Six Smashing Blows" the Chinese claimed to have inflicted upon the British. An explanation for this would be helpful.
The first mention of Enjue his title is abbreviated as Lt. Col.. It should be spelled out entirely.
"Elliot warned Kowloon officials of escalating conflict if the embargo continued." -->Could be reworded for clarity. Was Elliot threatening them?
Elleman says "a number of Chinese ships were damaged" but I think that's too vague to include in the infobox. Yes, one British account says one of its boats received 19 guns in the mainsail. But if I put that in the infobox, it could be misleading. That account was from someone on that particular boat. It seems entirely possible the other boats received damage too (especially considering the captain of one of the other ships was injured). So only putting that case might give the misleading impression that only that ship was damaged.
The official Chinese claim of victory and the reasons for their fabricated reports is mentioned in the aftermath section. Sinologist Arthur Waley explained the motive behind the reports in his book The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes, which is perhaps the best English-language source that explains the conflict from a Chinese perspective. Also, I've added the "Six Smashing Blows" claim.
Done.
Source says: "Charles had issued a warning to Kowloon officials that unless the merchant fleet could resume buying fresh provisions there was bound to be trouble". So not really a direct threat. I've changed "escalating conflict" to "bound to be trouble" to better reflect the source.
Why not just edit it to be the 4 different types of boats in the initial summary rather than using a footnote down the page.
If theres no major disagreement here I'll just change it myself soon ~~ Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
