Talk:Battle of Kowloon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Hello. To start with the review, some comments:

1. 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?
2. 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.
3. The first mention of Enjue his title is abbreviated as Lt. Col.. It should be spelled out entirely.
4. "Elliot warned Kowloon officials of escalating conflict if the embargo continued." -->Could be reworded for clarity. Was Elliot threatening them?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Done.
4. 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.

Spellcast (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I'm passing it as a Good Article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! -Indy beetle (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Spellcast (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)