Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Nyon Conference/archive1

Comments by Wehwalt and replies

Lede

• I'm still confused on the Italian unrestricted submarine warfare. Our article on the same doesn't mention Italy. One reason, perhaps was that Italy was not at war. Can you explain this?

Context

• Who attacked Leipzig? And what reason did Germany give for the withdrawal?
• Who assigned the zones of control? The passive voice does not enlighten here.
• It isn't clear who France and UK would be partial to, as you haven't mentioned who they favoured in the war.
• "best solution" to what?
• "Whilst officially being at peace,[9] the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, known internationally as a campaign of piracy without reference to Italy."
• "Direct intervention on the Spanish question was avoided in France, with the new prime minister, Camille Chautemps, against such a plan." I imagine this means that France did not want to invade Spain, but I'm guessing a bit.
• "sinking two Soviet vessels, the Tuniyaev and the Blageav," This hasn't been mentioned yet. Were these civil or military vessels?
• Really, the reasons why Italy was doing this need to be better explained. I imagine it was to support Franco but ...
• "The conference was held" "was to be held" or similar.
• Also what the vessels being sunk were doing (I imagine they were gunrunning or freebooters of some sort?)
• "The British believed they could convince Italy to abandon Germany through appeasement." I would mention that this was Baldwin, not Chamberlain.

Let me know of improvements, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond as if they're numbered. On #1, the source says "Italian submarines which were ordered to start unrestricted operations in 12 August". Our article, unrestricted submarine warfare, suggests there were only four instances. This is, in many regards, at least misleading. In any case, it is not referenced. The article notes that "cruiser rules demand submarines surface and search merchantmen,[1] and place crews in "a place of safety" (for which lifeboats did not qualify, except under particular circumstances)" - which is quoting the First London Naval Treaty. If you compare the text of the agreement, the preamble includes "Whereas arising out of the Spanish conflict attacks have been repeatedly committed in the Mediterranean by submarines against merchant ships not belonging to either of the conflicting Spanish parties; and Whereas these attacks are violations of the rules of international law referred to in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930, with regard to the sinking of merchant ships". I therefore, in all the circumstances, consider the phrase fair. As you correctly identify, Italy was never formally at war. But it would seem strange indeed to limit "unrestricted submarine warfare" to times of official war. [The concept of "official war" is rather odd, anyway: by that measure, the Spanish Civil War began in 1938, if I recall correctly, when belligerent rights were granted to the Nationalists.] Our article "Naval warfare" defines it as "combat" which would fit with my usage.

For the first part of #2, the Germans said that it was a torpedo attack, though I do not believe this is particularly relevant to the reader. The purpetrator was unknown at the time (it is not mentioned in the August Bulletin source), and I do not think it has ever officially been known. Perhaps - and I am not sure - there remains the possibility the Germans made up the whole thing. For the purposes of the point, the Germans plead an attack, rather than an offender. For the second part, the Germans made a series of demands about protest to the Valencia government, which I can document. It is merely a question of whether that level of detail is required during the background/context section.

If you could have a look at #5 again, I've slightly altered it in comparison to the source.

#6: what is your concern with this sentence?

#7: Direct intervention can only be seen in reference to non-intervention. It could have been anything: arms shipments, volunteer or 'volunteer' squadrons, logistic, tactical or intelligence support. The possibilities, as far as I am aware, were not investigated. Would you prefer a reference to say, "the abandonment of non-intervention", included?

#8: I've included the word "merchant". I have more detail on the attacks, but I didn't see it as relevant. I wonder if you disagree.

#9: I didn't think this was the place. I should be able to write Italian involvement in the Spanish Civil War soon. Needless to say, it's complicated, and historians variously accuse each other of overlooking some aspect in favour of another. Ultimately, it's an article about a diplomatic conference, and I thought analysing Italian involvement and submarine activity was going too far.

#11: if only we knew. It's an immensely confusing and difficult to know business. The Blagoev's crew claim to not have been searched [against the 1930 Treaty] before sinking, and that they were not carrying anything illegal. The others I cannot say off the top of my head, nor is there any way of telling the truth, or not at least that I've seen. Of course all the victims denied doing anything illegal, and of course there is no Italian story because they denied they'd done it.

#12: I don't have Thomas at the moment, but the source I do have, Gretton p. 110, says "The prime minister [i.e. Chamberlain] still clung to his delusion that he could separate Mussolini from Hitler". I wonder if you could clarify you point if this does not answer your doubt, so to speak.

The points not mentioned I've altered accordingly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll take a second look later today. I need to dig up my copy of Self's bio of Chamberlain.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll address the specific points later. I've just read the (rather limited) coverage of Nyon in Self and also in David Faber's book on the Munich crisis (this is considered, at least to a limited extent, part of the run-up to Munich.

Faber discusses that Chamberlain and Eden were hardly on the same page so far as Nyon and diplomacy with Italy in general. (Chamberlain had private emissaries to Il Duce, such as Lady Ivy Chamberlain, Austen's widow). Both Self and Faber tie the events of Nyon with two other contentious issues--Italian "volunteers" on the Franco side of the Spanish Civil War, and the Ethiopian (for modern day readers I'l call it that) crisis, and Italy's desire for de jure recognition of its conquests there. Faber mentions something you allude to, that in February 1938, Britain resumed Nyon patrols after a British vessel called the Endymion was sunk, and then another unnamed vessel, presumably by Italian submarines. The three issues--Ethiopia, submarines, and volunteers--seem closely tied together but the two non-naval ones seem underplayed in the article. You are correct that Chamberlain sought to appease Mussolini and separate Italy from Germany, but Chamberlain wanted these three issues solved. The carrot, of course, was the de jure recognition; the stick was the Nyon patrols. I think a bit more context is needed, without throwing Chamberlain under the bus--his foreign policy was entirely reasonable at the time (thus the word "delusion" perhaps represents a nod to Munich), and it was to some extent successful as Italy resumed Nyon patrols in February 1938.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I missed the partiality point, above. They did not say to which side: effectively one has to make the same inferral now as then. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I adjusted the indentation of you final paragraph to match the first two. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm careless about such things, I am afraid. Can you send me an email? I have some sources that may be of use to you and that you may want to integrate before you go further. I can't send attachments using the wiki mail system.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I see you have what I was going to offer you. I agree, you should add another paragraph of background to cover the issues I've suggested. And I think you should mention what the Anglo-Italian agreements set forth, and also that by then, it was basically too late for the Royalists. Then I'll take another look and we'll see what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph which I think does a fair job without focussing on either issue too much (some accounts do not include such a reference, or at least, do not imply a link even if they mention the three things). Assuming you mean "Republicans", well, I don't think that the Anglo-Italian Agreements actually achieved anything of note in this article's scope other than a brief softening in relations, as stated by the current sentence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, Republicans. The lede, in my view, is broadly accurate, but it does nothing to sell the subject matter to the reader. It reads as legalistic, and shoudl try more to draw the reader in. Perhaps stress that it was part of the response to the Spanish Civil War.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've included "during the Spanish Civil War" which was conspicuously absent. Whilst the "pirates" could theoretically have not been related to the war, this was patently false and it would be a grave error not to consider the Nyon Conference part of/a response to the Spanish Civil War. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would say "legally constituting piracy". Do you want me to do another readthrough? I did read your comments in the WT:FAC discussion and am disinclined to leave you in the lurch.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if you could indicate which issues you believe of the dozen or so are outstanding or need further work, and those which have been satisfacotarily dealt with. That way, I can formulate the next steps to ensure your issues are dealt with. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will look at it later in the day. For starters, "The Non-Intervention Committee, set up in 1936, had attempted to restrict the flow of weapons to the parties of the Spanish Civil War.[1] It was part of a policy of appeasement," It isn't made clear who is appeasing whom (assume me very familiar with Chamberlain's policies). I am willing to consider, by the way, that my standards for prose may be set too high, so I will concentrate on content unless I see something obvious.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Self, in his bio of Chamberlain on page 275, mentions an Anglo-Italian "Gentleman's Agreement" under Baldwin (who probably should be mentioned) in January 1937. Was this connected with the Italian declaration of that month which you mention? As Chamberlain was Chancellor at the time, that's a good reason to mention Baldwin. Also, you mention Lord Halifax but do not say who he was (I know, but does the reader?)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing who's appeasing whom, mentioned the Gentleman's Agreement, which is 5 days earlier that the declaration (as it turns out). I've mentioned the Baldwin => Chamberlain PM successor-ship, and something about Halifax (I say "influential" only because his official position as Leader of the House of Lords and sometime President of the Council doesn't sound very powerful, but he was). Is this sufficient on these issues? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that had been the post of Baldwin whilst MacDonald was PM, powerful indeed (and I think, vice versa). I would say Lord President of the Council. Let me take some notes and get back to you, if we try to do this piecemeal, you won't know where it ends.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede:

• I would not put the word "piracy" in the first sentence because it doesn't convey what was going on to the reader. I would say something like "Italian naval intervention" or some such or "attacks on neutral shipping bound for ports under Republican control"

Context:

• Non-intervention Committee: It is not clear who set it up, or what the membership was. Was this, for example, under League of Nations auspices? The next sentence implies that it was British

  I would make it clear that the policy of appeasement was under both Baldwin and Chamberlain.

  Chamberlain's new policy: Yes and no. He certainly reached out to them but Germany was at that time playing hard to get, and Italy, Eden did not want direct contact until Italy played nice. Some adjustment in phrasing might be good.

  It might be good to mention, for the sake of continuity, when Italy/Germany joined the patrols to begin with.

• I would move the discussion of Italy being behind the attacks as high as you can in this section, as it makes the situation clearer to the reader.
• "unrestricted submarine warfare" should probably be linked on first use.
• Surely something so tied up in Foreign Policy would have had Mussolini's approval. Is "Italian leadership" toning it down a bit?
• It's OK to have "belligerent rights" redlinked. But not twice.
• Self mentions that a British tanker was sunk in August by a submarine, and implies that this really put the cat among the pigeons so far as British policy towards Italy was concerned. Would it be helpful if I scanned and emailed to you the pages from Self? Pages 270 to 275, I would say. It's the only useful Chamberlain book I can come up with on short notice.
• "On 5 or 6 September" Why is there uncertainty?
• "Direct intervention on the Spanish question was avoided in France" I still think this doesn't give the reader very much information.
• I would have the discussion of the Soviet response all together, and possibly in its own paragraph.
• " an appeal" It's prosy, but I would say "counterproposal", in which case delete the word "by" later in the sentence.
• "The British believed they could convince Italy to abandon Germany through appeasement.[28]" I would move this to your discussion of British politics. It may be redundant to what is in there.

Provisions

• I found the first paragraph rather confusing. I think the problem is that you are assuming people have knowledge of the implications of the various proposals. It may not be clear to the reader, for example, under what circumstances French ships would come under foreign command (I guess in a convoy, but I'm guessing).
• "The participation of the Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean was disputed by many of the other nations,[29] so the United Kingdom and France agreed to handle Aegean patrols. This was, perhaps surprisingly, accepted by the Soviet Union." Some sort of link on Aegean? And I think if you avoided the passive voice here, you'd be a lot better off. Just say the other countries didn't want Soviet ships patrolling the Mediterranean.
• "Both countries would patrol the high seas and territorial waters of signatory countries." In the Mediterranean?
• "The French and British camps moved to Geneva.[34] The parties to the agreement were happy; The Times likened them to cricketers, "reviewing their innings, over by over"" The first part of this is confusing. What camps? And keep in mind, the parties are countries. Possibly delegates? It is not clear what they were doing to be likened to cricketers. Were they celebrating?
• "the British wanted the Spanish parties to be able to verify flags, thereby preventing attacks on British shipping if Republican ships continued to use the British flag as a means of escape." If the British ships were attacked because of false flag incidents, this probably should be mentioned further up.
• "A Soviet proposal strengthening the effect of the agreement was made." In what way?

Aftermath

• It would be worth mentioning that by mid-1938, the Spanish Civil War had the Republicans definitely on the back foot.
• I would put the press reaction all together, the subsequent events all together, and the historical view all together.

When you are through with that, I'll look through it again. Drop me a line on my talk on the scans, if they can be of help to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given the lead another go.

• Non-intervention Committee: It is not clear who set it up, or what the membership was. Was this, for example, under League of Nations auspices? The next sentence implies that it was British

I've now linked the term (should have been done long ago) and mentioned it was a twenty-four nation group based in London. Give that the Committee is fairly well covered (well, I wrote that article!) I think this should be sufficient.

• Chamberlain's new policy: Yes and no. He certainly reached out to them but Germany was at that time playing hard to get, and Italy, Eden did not want direct contact until Italy played nice. Some adjustment in phrasing might be good.

Mills is fairly clear: "Chamberlain's meetings ... were an emphatic departure from Baldwin's practice of avoiding direct contact with the leaders of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy." which I toned down a bit to ensure that it did reflect the body of thinking.

"I would make it clear that the policy of appeasement was under both Baldwin and Chamberlain." The article calls it a "British policy". Given that the Nyon Conference happens well into the Chamberlain term, I'm not sure it's the place for the history of appeasement, which is linked if the reader would like further information.

• "It might be good to mention, for the sake of continuity, when Italy/Germany joined the patrols to begin with."

Done.

• I would move the discussion of Italy being behind the attacks as high as you can in this section, as it makes the situation clearer to the reader.

I think it's a suitable place after mentioning attacks on shipping. I doubt, and I would not like to link them to the attack on the Leipzig.

These ones done for now (was away yesterday). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone is on every day. We have no deadlines here. So it might be until tomorrow before I can seriously look over what you've done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• "unrestricted submarine warfare" should probably be linked on first use.

Now linked in the lead, which is what I think you meant.

• Surely something so tied up in Foreign Policy would have had Mussolini's approval. Is "Italian leadership" toning it down a bit?

Oh, yes, he almost certainly did. The sources don't say that explicitly, so I stayed from doing so. Gretton is the one who helpfully uses the term "unrestricted", and he doesn't identify who made the order, only that it was made. Mussolini is named in the article, I think what we've got is appropriate.

Unlinked "belligerent rights" on the second occasion (which was added before the first, hence the problem).

• Self mentions that a British tanker was sunk in August by a submarine, ...

Does he name it? There is the Woodford, recently flagged (had been Greek), but that was torpedoed on the 1st or 2nd of September; accordingly, it did not have much by way of political impact (for example, it was the same time as the Havock incident). That sounds like a lot of work, so unless you think it's necessary, don't do so on my account.

No, he doesn't. Let it go, then.

• "On 5 or 6 September" ~ Thomas and The Times say 6, Gretton and Mills say 5. Presumably there was either a delay between sending and recieving, or between agreeing to send and actually sending.
• "Direct intervention on the Spanish question was avoided in France" I still think this doesn't give the reader very much information.

Reworded so as to frame Cheutemps as the subject. Hopefully the sentence works better like that.

• I would have the discussion of the Soviet response all together, and possibly in its own paragraph.

I was sticking to chronology, because there are three things that I thought had to come in order, else it would be misleading:

1. USSR, Germany invited
2. USSR accuses Italy of being behind attacks
3. Germany, Italy refuse invitation

Accordingly, I can't think of a way to break it up otherwise - the minimum would be three paragraphs, a Soviet and one before and one after, but the last one in particular would be rather short. I have moved an organisational point - the location - before the Soviet bit, which I think helps and you may find sufficient in the circumstances.

No, that is fine. I'f I am content that a writer has a clear vision, and it comes through, which this is, then that's enough.

• " an appeal" ~ the problem with "counterproposal" is that doing nothing is not really a proposal - but I've never liked "appeal" so I went with "stating" (and a minor rephrasing to fit). On a procedural note, my comments that prose standards were too high in general was not a criticism of any reviewer, so if you have prose comments, I'd still welcome them. (Perhaps deal with them separately?)

• "The British believed..." ~ sentence moved up, although I don't think it's redundant. I think a reader would think of appeasement as "giving them something so they don't or can't take everything" (as simplistic as that is, of course) and so it's not obvious there was a plan to break Italo-German cooperation.

That's some more replies for now.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)

• "I found the first paragraph rather confusing."

I've reordered the French sentence you mention - the multinational patrols were the problem, which were mentioned in the sentence but I've reordered it to make that clearer. Would welcome any other commenys about making it more understandable.

• "The French and British camps moved to Geneva.[34] The parties to the agreement were happy; The Times likened them to cricketers, "reviewing their innings, over by over"" The first part of this is confusing. What camps? And keep in mind, the parties are countries. Possibly delegates? It is not clear what they were doing to be likened to cricketers. Were they celebrating?

I've replaced it with the source's phrase "naval staffs" meaning it's a bit close to the source but it's only one short sentence. Changed "signatories" to "delegates". The Times, as well as confirming they are happy, is making a point about going over their success in their minds. Like watching the highlights to a game in great depth after you know your team's won it. The cricket metaphor presumably came easily at the time, but it's a nice way to put it to the reader.

• "the British wanted the Spanish parties to be able to verify flags, thereby preventing attacks on British shipping if Republican ships continued to use the British flag as a means of escape." If the British ships were attacked because of false flag incidents, this probably should be mentioned further up.

I've looked through the other accounts, and they don't mention it, so I think it's problably right to place it chronologically when the issue was brought up. The notable incidents that led to the conference do not seem to have been the result of it. I've changed it though - the remarks are attributed to Admiral Chatfield in particular. They may not have been the British position; indeed, they probably were not. (The Admiralty was pro-nationalist to a noticeable extent as you may know.)

• "A Soviet proposal strengthening the effect of the agreement was made." In what way?

Source doesn't say; thought it was worth mentioning by virtue of it being made by the USSR

• It would be worth mentioning that by mid-1938, the Spanish Civil War had the Republicans definitely on the back foot.

The article says "In Spain, the Republicans – on the verge of disaster" - is this sufficient?

• I would put the press reaction all together, the subsequent events all together, and the historical view all together.

We've reorganised it about six or seven different ways already; by nationality, date, type, etc. I thought this arrangement was at least not confusing, even if for different readers they might concentrate on a particular layout (you might, for example, be interested in France; you might want to know how views have changed since the Second World War; etc.).

Fair enough, if you've been there and done that, then I put it as editorial discretion and don't question it if I can't see a better way. [--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)]

Further comments from Ealdgyth

• Context (continued)
  • "Italy had been openly accused of sending 60,000 Italians volunteers to Spain at the Non-Intervention Committee." This is awkward and lacks context - WHO accused Italy? Suggest "At a meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee, Italy had been accused of sending 60,000 Italians volunteers to Spain by (whoever)."
  • Third paragraph - do not get the conncetion between the second sentence and the rest of the paragraph - context is missing to tie this into the rest of the paragraph.
  • "...that rights of search could be used by both the Republicans..." need to explain briefly "rights of search" not just link it.
  • I continue to have problems tying much of the facts in the third paragraph together - not sure what a lot of this has to do with things. I really feel that context is missing.
  • "In France, Camille Chautemps, the new prime minister..." you capitalized Prime Minister for Chamberlain ... need to be consistent.
  • "The invitation extended to the Soviet Union was accepted, with a reply that indicated that it would use the opportunity to blame Italy for the attacks on shipping." Wordy - suggest "The Soviets accepted the invitation and their reply indicated they would use the opportunity to blame Italy for the shipping attacks."
• Provisions:
  • "On 8 September, plans were discussed in cabinet, including the setting up of eight groups..." was this the British cabinet? or were these talks taking place at the conference?
  • When did the conference ... CONVENE? We never get a statement of the conference actually starting and who attendeded for each nation? I think that's a pretty significant oversight here...
  • Oh, wait .. here we go ..."and the conference began on the 10th" - so the stuff above was what? Needs more context to establish what exactly all these meetings were...
  • "Proceedings took two forms: discussions between the British and French, and formal meetings of all attending parties. Many of the other nations opposed the participation of the Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean... " what other nations? How many were on the various teams from each country?
  • "This was, perhaps surprisingly, accepted by the Soviet Union." Need to explain why this was surprising.
  • "....including submarines in the vicinity of a recent attack that were determined to be responsible for the attack." Isn't this redundant with the preceding part of the sentence?
  • "The French and British naval staffs moved to Geneva.[34] The delegates to the agreement were happy; The Times likened them to cricketers, "reviewing their innings, over by over"." ... very choppy and disjointed - Why is it important that the staffs moved to Geneva? What does that have to do with the last sentence?
  • "A second agreement was signed into force on 17 September 1937..." awkward - needs rewording, perhaps "A second agreement was signed on 17 September 1937, with the terms to take effect from (blah), ..."
  • "It was signed in a second meeting in Geneva; official versions were published in French and English." why the detail on the publishing for this part but not the first set of agreements?
  • "...wanted the Spanish parties to be able to verify flags,..." what does this mean in non-jargony terms?
  • "...and the French insisted that this provision was dropped." should be "...and the French insisted that this provision be dropped."
  • "A suggestion to fire at any attacking aircraft was easily passed." this is jarring - you've got the sentence before that stated some proposals were not implemented - but then you only list one that wasn't and then start listing proposals that were implemented without any introduction that we're done with the stuff that wasn't implemented.
  • "Another suggestion on surface ships (which incorrectly stated no attack had yet been proven) was eventually toughened ..." we haven't heard anything about proving or not proving attacks - this needs context.
  • "...A Soviet proposal strengthening the effect of the agreement was made" - so what was the proposal?
  • "Greece and Turkey, keen not to be forced to fire on a German or Italian warship, wished ships with a clear identifying mark to be excluded; this was impractical, but an amendment was made to this effect, covering only ships in their own territorial waters." very awkward - suggest rewording
• Aftermath:
  • The first paragraph is out of chronological order here and it is a bit odd - not sure how else to work this but it's jarring to jump back to the 13th after discussing the 17th.
  • "A compromise was signed on 30 September,[42] and Italian patrols started on 10 November..." okay, what was the compromise? Italy just a couple of sentences earlier said "no way" and suddenly it's "yes, we will" what changed?
  • "The British government, and in particular Neville Chamberlain, desired better relations with Italy and these were achieved with the signing of the Anglo-Italian Agreements of 1938." and this is connected with the preceeding how? what bearing does it have on things?
  • "However, submarine activity returned and full patrols were resumed." when did the activity resume? And when did patrols resume?
  • "The success of the conference was in marked contrast to the failure of the Non-Intervention Committee." - failure how? And at what?
  • "The British press was in favour, although The Times..." in favour of what?
  • "The agreement also allowed for greater military resources to be deployed to the Mediterranean as required." as required by or for?
  • "He also said he regretted that Spanish merchant shipping had been left out – the other nations believed this would have amounted to formal intervention into the civil war." - shouldn't the lack of coverage for Spanish merchant shipping be covered in the provisions?
  • "...and claimed credit for the Soviet delegation's role." Who claimed credit for this role? The soviets or Akers?
  • "The Nationalists made several complaints, none..." what were these complaints?
• So nothing else happened after the suspension of activity in 1938? Did it just fade away?

Lots of work, and normally I would have not gone into this amount of detail - but I felt you needed the full explanation for my oppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've attended to the rest of the "Context" section. The first sentence of hte third paragraph has been completely reworded, so that might ease the paragraph's problem and the sentence 1 => 2 link.

In terms of "provisions", I've seen to a couple. "Who attendeded for each nation" ~ well, the Soviet and British representatives are mentioned. No-one else is mentioned in the sources, even the four people we name are barely mentioned. Accordingly, I trust their judgement that it is not an operative concern, that it was the view of nations and not people in Nyon.

The "stuff above" was at the request of another reviewer, Wehwalt, that the Conference needed further context. The "Context" section provides the incidents to explain where the Nyon Conference went from. It would be impossible to formulate a context that did not need context, and this issue needs careful thinking. Our featured articles on battles do not provide much context on the war (for example, the Battle of Blenheim provides almost no information on that) and as I see it, our article on this conference need not provide that much context on the diplomatic war it was a part of. That being said, the information I added at Wehwalt's request does aid the reader's understanding. Therefore, it there's any our battle articles tell us, it's that something that would help the reader's understanding does not necessarily need including. I don't quite know what you mean by "what these meetings were", perhaps you could elaborate.

"Proceedings took two forms" ~ "What other nations?" ~ the attending nations are provided. The source doesn't say who out of them opposed (merely "riparian states"). "teams" ~ I have no idea, nobody mentions it in any of the range of academic sources. I imagine it varied greatly between the states, and between background staff and negotiators, and technical drafters, and military advisors, and organisers. What change were you thinking of?

"The French and British naval staffs moved to Geneva" ~ moved/merged with the next paragraph. The Times bit has to come there so as to follow vaguely chronological order lest we confuse the reader. It could be moved slightly up the paragraph, but that would probably break up that paragraph more?

"Another suggestion..." ~ unfortunately Gretton does not elaborate on which attack by a surface ship he believes had been proven. He's the only one that mentions it, as I recall. Did you have something in mind?

"What was the proposal" ~ he doesn't say (mentioned by Wehwalt as well).

"The first paragraph is out of chronological order". I've added "meanwhile", at least signposting the change in chronology. It's outside Nyon, so putting it in the "provisions" section seems a bit odd; also the Italian issue is moreorless self-contained and goes on for a bit.

"What changed?" ~ the topic of Italian-free Russian route is mentioned. Accordingly to all sources "changes were made to accommodate both sides", which I took as tautologous to a compromise and omitted. Exactly whether the Soviets got their route isn't mentioned. Indeed, The Times indicates little was different from how it was originally planned. I can't see an improvement.

"what bearing does it have on things?" ~ it's an Anglo-Italian paragraph, so it seemed the place to put it. The "Context" section establishes the role of the conference in Anglo-Italian relations of the period, so I included this bit as the "next thing" in that line, by way of context after the conference. "Better relations with Italy" is the sole notable outcome of those agreements as far as they are relevant here.

"The success of the conference..." ~ the aim of the Non-Intervention Committee is noted in the "context" section. Should we repeat it?

The absence of Republican shipping is indeed noted: "attacked neutral shipping" (my emphasis).

"The Nationalists made several complaints, none..." ~ mentioned one as an example, the only non-frivolous one Gretton mentions. Is that sufficient?

Depends what you mean by "nothing", but nothing worth noting here, no; since we are concerned with the Nyon Agreement, and it was suspended in August, I suppose that noteworthy events in Mediterranean attacks would be suitable for mention, but there aren't.The Republic was much weakened by this point (as mentioned).

Some changes I haven't mentioned, as I felt that the alteration was suitable and didn't require further discussion - I believe I've attended in some form to all your points. Thanks for the work you've put in, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)