Talk:Battle of Cádiz (1669)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

This is a decent article, and seems fairly comprehensive. I don't anticipate many problems getting this listed. Some quibbles:

• Images. One image is used twice. Given that this is a fairly short article with only two different images, the double use is quite obvious. Using the image twice is not a GA issue, but I raise it as a general talking point. On the one hand it is useful to have the image close by the discussion of it. On the other, the image is not far away when it is at the top. One suggestion may be to have a link to the image from the words - "an engraving of the battle". The Kirkall image could then be brought down into the appropriate section - at the moment it is placed in the proceeding section to that in which it is discussed. The Kirkall image could do with a better caption, per WP:Caption. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, will check it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The lead section nearly always needs attention in a GAN. This GAN is no different! See WP:Lead. The lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the topic. As a rough guide, the important information from each section should be summarised in the lead. If there is a section on the date dispute, then the date dispute should be mentioned in the lead. There is a long and detailed background section - the important details from that section should be summarised and placed in the lead. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Prose is good. I'm doing a bit of copy-editing as I go through, rather than list minor items here. Any problems with my edits, please amend or raise the issue here. I have a question about the use of "pink" and "ketch" in the same sentence about the same vessel. That needs clarifying for those, like me, not familiar with nautical terms. If they mean the same thing, then it may be better to use just one term, preferably with a quick definition - such as "accompanied by a pink - a small ship with a narrow stern". If they mean different things, then winkilink both terms, and explain both terms. See WP:Jargon for more info. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The pink and the ketch are two different ships, but I think I see the place where there is confusion, and I'll fix it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The details about the King David fighting off 70 Algerines is not relevant to this topic, and is potentially confusing. The pertinent fact is that she was captured. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It actually is relevant - without mentioning it somewhere, there is no context for the part in "aftermath" about the fund for the redemption of slaves, which redeemed KD's people first because they had fought well. It could be mentioned there first, but it does need to be mentioned somewhere. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• "the prize was both a bad sailer and...." A little more clarity needed for the general reader in terms of the words "prize" and "sailer". See again - WP:Jargon. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Will fix. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Recent edit summary: so "men" in Hollar's account presumably means "prisoners and prize-crew". Presuming is considered WP:Original research. It is not for us editors to "interpret" texts. And we should take care when using WP:Primary sources - in general it is better if we can use a secondary source which comments on the primary source. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hollar has explained earlier that "having found 22 Turks aboard her; and three Christians, one a Russian, and two Englishmen, we transported them aboard us, and sent other men aboard her". SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right; I'll correct that again. (I wish there were more secondary sources.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The statement that "the painting may depict a later stage of the battle" appears to come from one person's view. It would be appropriate to name the person and the source in the article - "Leonard George Carr Laughton in "The Mariner's Mirror" in 1926 suggested that the painting may show the closing stages of the battle....". This is clearly showing who is saying what. I had to track down the source to make sure it wasn't you saying it. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Will fix. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The index source is used to support three statements, yet the source is not clear as it needs to be interpreted. Do you have other sources which make comments about the dates and the name of the painter? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is used to attest the Monamy and van de Velde paintings of the action, giving the 8th for one and the 28th for the other. The Monamy one is the one described at length whose provenance is debated; I think the van de Velde one is the one you linked below.

The sources used in the article are all the sources I could find on the battle, and I've pretty much wrung every detail I could out of them. I don't think, then, that there's a source commenting on the date discrepancy in other sources - is it wrong to say "some sources give this date and some give that"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The prose is good - it is readable and often engaging. However, it does use too much unexplained jargon, which is against GA criteria that "the prose is clear and concise". SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take another look over it and see what I can do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The article relies heavily on a primary source and makes interpretations from this source, which is against WP:Original research. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you specify which parts are interpretations or appear to be interpretations, so I can either correct them to the source or remove them? (As I said, I wish there were more secondary sources - I use what I can, like Sea Fights, but they often give less detail.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• There are a number of challengable statements which are not cited. These tend to be the ones that are derived from the primary source. A possible solution would be to quote from the source directly, as from a novel or film when describing the plot. See Wikipedia:Quotations. Example: According to Hollar, they "took and made prize of her, and having found 22 Turks aboard her ... we transported them aboard us, and sent other men aboard her".<ref name="Robinson">{{Cite journal |title=The Fight of the Mary Rose |last=Robinson |first=C.N. |journal=Mariner's Mirror |volume=12 |year=1926 |pages=97–100 |url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fight_of_the_Mary_Rose}}</ref> Be aware, though, of overusing the quotes. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify which are the ones that need citations? The article text, at least the part on the battle, follows Hollar fairly closely, so in most cases it's that I didn't want to put the same citation after every sentence - let me know and I'll add some in. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is another image that could be used: [1]. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Would that be allowable? I wasn't sure because I'm aware that in the US, a copy of a PD two-dimensional work is itself not copyrightable, but there's a copyright notice on the page. I'm not too well-versed in these issues, and I'd love to add another image if I could. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright has expired. You can upload to Commons. Use {{PD-old-100}}, and link to the website as the source. The copyright tag they have placed on the image is inappropriate as the image is now in the public domain. Check first in Commons that the image hasn't already been loaded. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC) The {{PD-Art}} template is also appropriate. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am satisfied that the article covers the significant events and provides enough information to satisfy the general reader, and that it doesn't go into excessive detail on any aspect. I am also satisfied that the tone is neutral and sober and appropriate for an encyclopedia. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On hold

This is a very pleasant, informative and useful article which is capable of meeting GA criteria with a little more work. I'll put on hold for an initial seven days to allow time for the work to be done. Points to work on are:

1. Provide adequate caption for mezzotint image
2. Reduce use of jargon, or where unavoidable or inappropriate, provide a short plain English definition next to the first use of the jargon term
3. Build lead so that it provides a summary of all important details in the article
4. Either provide a reliable secondary source for the action, or quote selectively from the primary source, avoiding editorial interpretation. Remember to use inline cites for any statements that could be challenged. The amount of use of citations is often disputed, though when quoting from a primary source, each instance of a quote must be cited.
5. The Date section is problematic regarding sources and interpretation of sources. For example, it seems to be using this as saying that the action took place on the 8th - when it appears that the source is indicating that the event started on the 8th and finished on the 18th, which is in line with Hollar. There doesn't appear to be a reliable source for the speculation on the reason for the apparent date discrepancy. It may be better to remove the date section until a reliable source can be found which directly comments on the apparent discrepancy.

Please ping me if there are any questions or problems. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re 5, NMM source - that makes sense. Should we then treat the date as being the 18th-19th, per Hollar etc., or what other date? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, treat the date as Hollar. If there are obvious variations, but no reliable source has commented on them, then you can do a footnote as we did with George Harrison's name. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that works. (Should the article then be moved back to "Action of 18 December..."?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with military history naming conventions - the title works OK for me as December as the events described in the article cover December, but you'd need to either ask at the Military History Wikiproject, or see what reliable sources say - or do both. Yes, I am aware that there are not many sources, but there are some, and a quick glance seems to indicate that the Mary Rose name is used, as in "The Fight of the Mary Rose", "The ‘Mary Rose’ action, 8-18 December 1669", and "Action between HMS 'Mary Rose' and seven Algerines, December, 1669". Would it be: Mary Rose action, December 1669 or Action of Mary Rose, December 1669? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) suggests the use of where and what, but as sources are using who, what and when it seems appropriate to stick with sources. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• The "primary source and makes interpretations from this source" comment is related to the use of Hollar - I suggested this: "A possible solution would be to quote from the source directly, as from a novel or film when describing the plot. See Wikipedia:Quotations. Example: According to Hollar, they "took and made prize of her, and having found 22 Turks aboard her ... we transported them aboard us, and sent other men aboard her". Be aware, though, of overusing the quotes." You then asked: "Could you specify which are the ones that need citations?", and were concerned about citing each sentence. I would return you to what I said about using quotations for the main details, and each quote would need citing, and avoiding making interpretations from Hollar. If another source has made interpretations or reports Hollar, then you could also use that source. When third party sources, especially multiple third party sources, say the same thing about an incident, then it is regarded as fact, and can be presented as such - unless another source contests the reports. But when you have only one source, and it is the primary source, then it has to be presented as the source giving the information rather than it is accepted fact.

In short - if the detail is only found in Hollar, then do not present it as established fact, present it as Hollar's report, and cite Hollar.

Essentially, unless the relevant part of Hollar's report has been verified by a reliable third party it cannot be used as undisputed fact, but must be presented as coming from Hollar's report.

I hope that's clear - if not, let me know, and I'll try again. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added "Hollar says" or some such to parts where Hollar's account was cited and was the only source that gave this information. Are there any places you think need more citations? I know you said the main details, but do tell me where I should add more citations. :) Do you think the other issues you named have been addressed?

I'm also not sure what happens to a GA review when the article name is changed. Should I hold off moving it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Better to move it now as it saves paperwork afterwards. What title are you moving it to? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Cádiz (1669). Are the other issues with sourcing/citing/OR resolved (and so will everything be A-OK after the move?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at the article shortly to see if the GAN can be closed. Moving the article during the GAN is fine, and won't impact on the GA criteria. I note that the matter has been discussed, and Battle of Cádiz (1669) has consensus. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)