Talk:Action of 1 August 1801
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Action of 1 August 1801 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.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 1, 2010.|
|Current status: Featured article|
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 1 August 1801/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Okay, here it is:
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
Overall, very nice. Some comments though:
- The immediate issue that I encounter is that is the "Background" section doesn't cover some very specific facts - namely, what conflict the action was a part of and what the sides were. You start talking about Commodore Dale, but the reader doesn't know what country he's from or why he's blockading a port! Then I realized that this information is only mentioned in the introduction, which I always read last in a review. Anyways, per WP:LEAD, there should not be any information introduced in the lead that is not present in the body of the article. Please contextualize the article in the "Background" section and ensure that everything in the lead is presented and cited in the body.
- The last sentence of "Aftermath" - "the Dey was no closer to accepting the American terms and besides the Enterprise's victory over the Tripoli and the war continued on." - Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like there's something wrong with this portion of the sentence; I guess I don't get the "and besides the Enterprise's victory over the Tripoli" part.
To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 02:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great! I believe that the article meets the GA criteria, so I will be passing it as a Good Article now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 1, 2011.|
I do not agree this article is NPOV.
Why are the tripolitans branded "perfidious"? Not only are there no rules in war; the Americans used "flag tricks" first!
I do not see any significant difference in the ways the two different sides disingenuously used their flags that merits labelling one side "perfidious" (complete with a wholly inappropriate link that details the Geneva Convention prohibition that came into effect a full 176 years later) and not the other?
- Perhaps you don't understand what perdify is in a legal sense? It has always been considered perdify to fiegn surrender in order to gain advantage over another combatant. It is a well established fact that the Tripolitans in this engagement resorted to perdify in order to try to carry the day. Every single source that goes into detail mentions it. It is not acceptable to fight under a flag of surrender or another countries flag, the established practice was that using a false flag was acceptable up to the point of engagement itself. Once fighting was to begin, the combatants were required to raise their national colors.XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Number of masts
The current text says this about Tripoli: "a lateen-rigged polacca with two masts". But looking at the pictures, I doubt that Tripoli would have been a ship with two masts only. I assume that in Bainbridge's drawing this ship is the one to the right: it has two masts still standing, and one displaced. In this painting the ship to the right, which is being chased by the other, clearly has three masts. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think we cannot trust the illustrations, and should clearly state the problems in the captions. In the painting of the fight, one ship looks like a frigate and the other like a western schooner. The chasing vessel in the other painting does not look like a schooner (never seen a schooner with studding sails), but I'm less sure about that one. I think the paintings are by people who knew what ships looked like, but did not know what type of ships were involved. --LPfi (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)