Talk:Battle of the Narrow Seas/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    For the Wernham source (page 401):
    There is no mention of the Queen deciding to act, appointing Mansell, or ordering him to join with the States fleet. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Added source which also says same (Calendar of state papers). Also found a new source by Corbett which I have added Successors of Drake which even has detailed map. Added this too in relevant sections of the article. Was on page 400 in Wernham's book so changed the first citation with relevant page no.s. Both say here that Cecil gave the order rather than the Queen.ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The source mentions Spinola running into Hope but not Victory. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bicheno says so on pg 298 Spinola ran into the 400 ton Hope launched in 1559 along with Victory. Added relevant page. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The source does not say that Spinola was blockaded at Dunkirk, although we can assume the naval battle ended there. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Corbett mentions the blockade to where he finally meets his end a year later. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Motley source:
    The citation itself is wrong. The book that addresses this action is in volume 4. The page number is 114-116. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ChangedChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Motley refers to the St. Philip and the Morning Star which to some English-only speakers is not readily identifiable with San Felipe and Lucera, respectively. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These are translated into English - San Felipe is the St Philip and Lucera means Morning Star. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that. My point is, does every other reader intuitively understand that? I don't speak Spanish so I didn't initially know to what Lucera referred. You should spell it out in the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed said names in brackets. ChrisWet (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Motley makes no mention of the Samson or the gale, although he does mention one Dutch vessel was damaged. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange he seems to get mixed up Sir Robert Mansell at Cezimbra yet it was Ricahrd Leveson who was at Cezimbra NOT Mansell. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Bicheno source:
    Bicheno says that the English and Dutch were informed of Spinola's movements; Bicheno does not specify about spies. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem in this well informed might mean spies.ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not your job to theorize about what the text might mean. Strike that part of the sentence, please. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Righto will change this with added source and who was informed (Robert Cecil). ChrisWet (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bicheno does not specify about the English fleet turning to port for a broadside. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a typical naval maneuver but I can remove it.ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're clear, please read WP:SYNTH. You are prohibited from developing your own conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. While you are probably right, that's not what we do here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. ChrisWet (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bicheno says that Mansell was only 29 when he led this fleet against the Spanish, which seems impressive to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed.. Impressive. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bicheno mentions flyboats in the book but not on the same page as the rest of this material and not even for this naval battle. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    changed reference to Corbett who mentions this. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misplaced the Corbett citation. The linked page 364 doesn't talk at all about English dominance of the seas... perhaps you meant page 366 for Philip abandoning an amphibious invasion of England? Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what happened there - changed as per new source Corbett - Successors of Drake. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Using the "autogenerated" title for most of the sources only makes checking these sources harder. You would do well to try {{Sfn}} to cover the citations. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Will try using that from now on. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the text from Motley can also be found at this URL so you probably ought to link it. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    There's no discussion (as Bicheno mentions) of Fredrico Spinola's history of privateer activity, or that this battle was the nation-state culmination of earlier private-venture piracy, or that the English and Dutch had sought specifically to interdict Spanish flota. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have a look at this but Wernham in Return of the Armadas discuses this on page 400 in 1599.ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The Royal Museum of Greenwich seems to assert File:Dover, 23 October 1602.jpg is copywritten. While I would assume that it is too old and is now public domain, the website says otherwise. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I change this? ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can find proof the image is not copywritten, I'd remove the image. It's a shame because I'm pretty sure the image itself would be fine but the museum's webpage seems to assert copyright and I have to take their word for it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Will remove it for now until it gets sorted. ChrisWet (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am growing very concerned on the sloppiness of the sourcing. When I see a citation I expect it to represent exactly what the text says with little variation. With so many sourcing issues it's not clear to me if there's original research (as in synthesis) going on. I'm also having doubts about accepting the non-English sources on good faith since the sources I've looked at have not been on the money. I'd like to get a response to determine how these issues can be resolved while this is on hold or if I should fail it to allow for a re-write. This is an important subject and there's some good scholarship here but it's not clear enough for me to feel good about. There's also the image issue to resolve. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will change this as much I can I hopefully I have improved the sourcing. User:Weymar Horren put in the non English sources and that I cannot help with seeing as he seemed to disagree with some of the points. As for the image I may just remove it if nothing can be done about the copyright. ChrisWet (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad we were finally able to complete this review. I spent more time at the library than I had intended but that's part and parcel of a GA review. I would warn you that your writing style seems to create a narrative with flourish only citing pro forma. I dislike this style because your sources do not always support the assertions you're trying to make with your text. Please remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and unlike academic writing, it's not meant to make an argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will learn from this and last thing I want is any arguments... many thanks for taking the timeout to review this and yes I spent a long time in the library too. ChrisWet (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Narrow_Seas/GA1&oldid=1080105352"