Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Vigo Bay

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Vigo Bay

[edit]
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote this article and havn't put an article up for A class for a long time, so any comments welcome. Thanks. Rebel Redcoat (talk)

Comment - on a quick look through the article, I have noticed that a number of sentences at the end of paragraphs are unreferenced. This needs to be ammended in order to pass criteria A1. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Issues addressed. Well written and cited article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The totals for ships in the info box, do not have a source/ref , and many statements in the text that need citations.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead does not have a single reference.
  • After the sentence Rooke sent ships to explore the mouth of Vigo Bay. A landing party had gleaned information from a captured friar that King Philip’s part of the treasure had already been landed, but that much wealth was still left on board the Spanish vessels., there should be a reference. Same as the following:
Rooke collected his prisoners and troops and set sail for England, Shovell following later.
The result was a financial windfall for Philip.

I have put citation needed tags in.

Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Redmarkviolinist - the lead does not need references. Per MOS, it is supposed to be a general summary of the entire article (which this appears to be, although I have not read the article closely), and therefore does not need to be referenced. Therefore, I have removed the fact tags you placed in the lead of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose A decent start, but there are too many citation needed tags, and too many unsourced statements. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response
OK, there’s some inconsistency here with the A-Class reviews.
The review of the Battle of Fort Henry is a current A-class nominee: it is of a similar size to this article and has 16 fewer citations. Yet, it gets support. Maybe because the people who supported that article actually read it, rather than tick off a checklist from an ever-burgeoning rulebook – now there’s a novel idea!
Why would I need to cite the statement - "The result was a financial windfall for Philip", when the preceding sentence (cited) reads - "In total, Philip managed to keep nearly seven million pesos, representing over half the silver from the fleet, amounting to the biggest sum in history obtained from the American trade by any Spanish king."
Another example - "Rooke collected his prisoners and troops and set sail for England, Shovell following later". A more banal sentence you could not find, yet a fact tag has been slapped on the end. Why?
So we now have the situation where the article gets plastered with unnecessary fact tags, and then it gets opposed because it's covered in fact tags.
I shall cite the ship numbers, but people who are willing to re-write much of the dross found in the MilHist project should not be discouraged or strangled by an ever increasing tangle of red tape.{no citation needed} Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, before I read an article in a review I have a quick scan through to see if there are any telltale signs of something wrong or missing. One of the main things I look for are citations/references. Even if the article is well cited in most places, if you were to take the article to FAC now it would not possibly pass with so many sentences at the end of paragraphs unreferenced. You have compared this review and article to the review and article of Battle of Fort Henry in the number of citations. If you look closely at the aforementioned article, you will see that everything in it is cited. Mate, please don't react badly to anything mentioned or stated above. If you try and replace the "citation needed" tags with proper citations, then it is highly likely that the oppose will disappear and you will gain supports. Redcoat, I'll make you a deal: if you find references/citations for the sentences and place them in, I will read every scrap of this article and provide you with either comments on the article's text that could lead to a support, or a support itself. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Having another quick look at the article, I can see that a number of "citation needed" tags have been added in the middle of paragraphs. If these sentences have been cited by the next source slightly further down in the paragraph, then just remove the tags stating that it is cited in that area. However, please do not remove the tags on actual unsourced statements until they are referenced. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Abraham ( and the others editors as well) - I think the stress has finally got to me! I thought the easiest thing to do was to simply cite all the queried sentences. If anyone wishes to oppose please do. My primary concern is whether the article reads well and is historical accurate (or at least as accurate as I can make it); relatively speaking, what grade it gets is of minor consequence. If it fails A-class that's perfectly OK. I shall answer any queries if I can in the next day or two, but then I'm taking a break from Wiki. Thanks again. Cheers for now. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome, and now I will uphold my end of the bargin and throughly review this article. On a quick look through, everything now appears to be very well cited and if I were you, Redcoat, I would contact Juliancolton about revoking his oppose as his concerns have now been addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I think the "cultural references" should be removed, given that it sounds a lot like "popular culture". JonCatalán(Talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • Use Template:fixbunching to fix edit section links at the top.
    • Shouldn't the Spanish be included as one of the belligerents in the infobox?
    • I would recommend using the cite book template in the references section.
    • I agree about the Cultural References section, it is extremely short and would be better integrated into the article somehow.

Besides those minor points it looks good. Joe (Talk) 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed the bunching myself. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • In the lead section it states that "hopes of capturing the bulk of the silver cargo had eluded Rooke". Did you really mean that the hopes eluded Rooke, or is it that the capturing eluded him?
Yes this is poorly worded. I’ll change it.
    • In he final sentence of the lead, does "Allied" refer to member of the Grand Alliance? Maybe you could move that link up in the sentence.
Done.
    • "Victuals", "whence"? I know this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, but perhaps some more widely accessible words could be used?
Well, victuals is the correct nautical term – a supply ship is a victualer. I'm reluctant to change it. I’ll change ‘whence’ to ‘From where’.
    • Inconsistent spelling of "Câdiz"/"Cádiz"
I spotted one, if I haven’t missed any more.
    • "Whilst" is specifically mentioned as a word to avoid in the Manual of Style
While is an older word than whilst. ‘Whilst’ is BrEn, and as an Brit I hope to continue to use the formal whilst and amongst. But if it’s a big problem, it can be changed.
  • Perhaps a mini summary of the "Aftermath" section (a sentence or two?) would help avoid having the subhead "Plunder" directly under "Aftermath"
The simplest thing to do is to delete the ‘Plunder’ heading: it’s not needed.
  • In the "Plunder" section I think the two colons (both after the word French) should be semicolons. There are other colons throughout the article that seem like they should be semicolons as well.
The colons are correct. Vigo Bay was a major naval disaster for the French: of the 15 French warships, 2 frigates and one fireship, not a single vessel escaped. The first part of the sentence is a complete statement, introducing a directly related explanation. Therefore a colon is used.
Here again, a colon is correct.

The Spanish suffered as badly: of the three galleons and 13 trading vessels in their fleet, all were destroyed, save five which were taken by the Allies.

  • In the same section, the French in "French warships" is redundant, since you've just stated that you're talking about the French a few words back.
Absolutely correct. Done.
  • Add some SI/metric unit conversions of the silver and gold. Also, unless the pounds and ounces are other than standard (as they may very well be), they really shouldn't be linked because they are considered common units.
Done. I’ve added kg values.
  • Can you explain why the fleet's arrival was "cause of celebration to the merchants in Holland"? Forgive my American ignorance, but wasn't Holland a part of the Dutch involved in the Alliance?
The use of ‘Holland’ – as opposed to Dutch Republic – was deliberate. The province was the centre of Dutch trade, consisting of the major cities of commerce. It was an attempt to be specific. I’ve linked ‘Holland’ if that helps. If not, replace ‘Holland’ with the ‘Dutch Republic’.
  • The section on the silver seized by Philip is confusing to me. Whose silver did he seize and how did he seize it?
The article states the silver was off-loaded before the battle and carted off to Segovia. As stated, most of the silver was owned by the Spanish government, but what belonged to the ‘English and Dutch traders’ was, again as stated, ‘confiscated’.
  • Why are the tables in the "Fleets" section centered? On a wide-ish screen they look funny floating so far from the left margin. Also, the meaning of some of the information in the "Notes" column for the Anglo-Dutch fleet eludes me. For Mary, for example, what does "Phoenix (fireship)" mean? Was Mary attacked by Phoenix? Did Mary destroy Phoenix? I don't know.
No, these are fireships that accompanied the Allied fleet. I’ll make that clearer in the table.
  • The French ship names in the table don't necessarily mesh with ship names given in the text. Example: Bourbon in the text, Le Bourbon in the table. Even if both names are correct to some extent, they ought to be identified in the article by the same name (unless, of course, they are two different ships).
I can remove the ‘le’ from the table to avoid confusing ‘Bourbon’ with ‘Le Bourbon’
  • Agree with the opinions above about the "Cultural references" section. Rather than lose the information, it could be added to a footnote referenced from the "Plunder" section where the treasure is discussed.
Yes, agreed. The only reason it’s there is because it was there in the old article. I’ve deleted it.

— Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, some excellent points. I think your link to the Royal Sovereign is incorrect, though, - it’s the wrong HMS RS. I’m not contributing to Wiki at the moment due to personal reasons. Not enough time etc. I didn’t think an A-class review would take so long. I will not be able to reply, but as I stated before, it’s not important if it makes A class, but it is certainly improved thanks to your contribution, and to the others as well. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Vigo_Bay&oldid=1189849988"