This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Battle of Lissa (1811) is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Lissa (1811)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. It's been looking for a Good Article review for some time, so although I feel that I might not be the best person to give it since I don't know much on this topic of history, I will give it anyways. In my opinion, the article passes because:
The prose is well written and the article complies with the Manual of Style.
It appears factually accurate and the references are verifiable.
It is broad in coverage.
It is neutral.
It is stable.
It is illustrated.
It's a very good article, and it makes Good Article status easily. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the word "Vis" should appear visibly in the lede. I know it is there in the piped link, but the random casual visitor won't see that. The article is there for them, not for us editors. A statement showing where the place is is a useful feature of a lede. I don't mind what wording is used. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"Now known as Vis" or "Later renamed Vis" -- I am indifferent. Thank you for agreeing to make the change. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
In this article, Corona is listed as belonging to the Kingdom of Italy, whereas the ship's article says that although built for the Venetian Navy, she was transferred to the French Navy in 1810. One or the other is wrong. Martocticvs (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure Corona was actually transferred to the Italian Navy in 1810 (the Kingdom of Italy being a client state of the French Empire). However now I think abou it, the Venetian Navy was disbanded in 1797, which leaves 13 years unaccounted for. Its quite likely that Corona was in French service during this time. I'll have a look over the next few days and see what I come up with.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This is related to the point in the previous section -- the artice speaks throughout of "Venetian" ships, although the Republic of Venice had ceased to exist 13 years earlier. I'm assuming that the ships had been built by Venice and were staffed by Venetian crews, but were flying the flag of the Kingdom of Italy? This should be made clearer at some point. --Jfruh (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)