Talk:Battle of Lissa (1811)

Battle of Lissa (1811) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Battle of Lissa (1811) is part of the Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
June 12, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 22, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 24, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 13, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / Napoleonic era

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Lissa (1811)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. It's been looking for a Good Article review for some time, so although I feel that I might not be the best person to give it since I don't know much on this topic of history, I will give it anyways. In my opinion, the article passes because:

The prose is well written and the article complies with the Manual of Style.
It appears factually accurate and the references are verifiable.
It is broad in coverage.
It is neutral.
It is stable.
It is illustrated.

It's a very good article, and it makes Good Article status easily. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vis in the lede

I think the word "Vis" should appear visibly in the lede. I know it is there in the piped link, but the random casual visitor won't see that. The article is there for them, not for us editors. A statement showing where the place is is a useful feature of a lede. I don't mind what wording is used. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Now known as Vis" or "Later renamed Vis" -- I am indifferent. Thank you for agreeing to make the change. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct nationality of Corona?

In this article, Corona is listed as belonging to the Kingdom of Italy, whereas the ship's article says that although built for the Venetian Navy, she was transferred to the French Navy in 1810. One or the other is wrong. Martocticvs (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure Corona was actually transferred to the Italian Navy in 1810 (the Kingdom of Italy being a client state of the French Empire). However now I think abou it, the Venetian Navy was disbanded in 1797, which leaves 13 years unaccounted for. Its quite likely that Corona was in French service during this time. I'll have a look over the next few days and see what I come up with.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Venetian" ships

This is related to the point in the previous section -- the artice speaks throughout of "Venetian" ships, although the Republic of Venice had ceased to exist 13 years earlier. I'm assuming that the ships had been built by Venice and were staffed by Venetian crews, but were flying the flag of the Kingdom of Italy? This should be made clearer at some point. --Jfruh (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Venice was replaced by the Venetian Province. So "Venetian" is still correct. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Lloyd's List has a list of casualties here. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order of British squadron in diagram

The diagram shows Amphion in the van, but the text suggests she was second in the line. Manolan1 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note

At Adkins, p. 363. there is no word about ottoman empire or Balkan. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]