Talk:Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1606)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1606)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick initial comment

• The short links to Rodríguez González, Agustín Ramón (1999) don't work properly.

Full review to follow. Harrias ^talk 06:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• In general, the language used in the article is below the standard we would expect for a Good article. I have provided some examples below, but there are more through the article. The content of the article is generally good, it's just the language that needs tidying up. Please read through my comments, and make the relevant changes, but also read through the entire article and try to make additional changes to fix similar problems elsewhere in the text. Once you have had a look through the whole thing, let me know, and I will have another read through. Harrias ^talk 08:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• "The battle concludes in a Spanish victory.." Should be past-tense: "concluded".
• "..and Haultain fled with the rest of the fleet to his country without having achieved his purpose there." I don't think "there" is necessary.

Background

• This section doesn't provide enough information, in fact, it leaves me asking more questions than are answered. What war still continued against the United Provinces? Was it the same war that England had been in, or different? Had Spain previously dominated naval battles against the Dutch? Was the war going badly for the Dutch; one assumes so, based on "..the Dutch naval expeditions were not brighter than those on land" but it isn't spelt out.
• Per WP:EDITORIAL try to avoid words such as "however".

Prelude

• "The sources differ in some previous details of the battle." This doesn't read quite right; I don't think "previous" is the right word here, and could be cut completely.
• "..to harass the merchant fleet, without much success." Can you clarify that this is the Spanish merchant fleet?
• "The commerce with the.." Again, for clarity, this might be better as "Spanish commerce with the.."
• What are "naos"?

Battle

• "Admiral Haultain crossed that place with the purpose.." Odd phrasing; would "Admiral Haultain passed the headland with the purpose.." have the right meaning?
• What are "units minors"?
• "..and riddled him." This is not encyclopaedic language; and is also a little vague. Do you actually mean him, or the ship?
• "Haultain would have come to support him.." This might work better as "Haultain intended to support him.." ?
• "Meanwhile, Klaazoon's ship was dismantled.." "dismantled" conjures up an image of the ship being methodically taken apart, rather than what I guess really happened.
• "..he used the terrible tactic of flying his ship with the sixty surviving crew.." Per WP:EDITORIAL, avoid phrases such as "terrible tactic" which sounds like an opinion. Also, what does "flying his ship" mean?
• "Only two sailors were alive after the explosion.." What explosion?
• "historiography" isn't the right word here; "histories" would suffice.

I will place the article on hold pending changes. Harrias ^talk 08:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Harrias. I have made the arrangements that you have suggested, among others, so you can review the article again. Regards. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Good work on this. Harrias ^talk 16:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)