Talk:Battle of Pirano/GA1

GA Review

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Minor Fail

• Some awkward prose and grammar problems in the text:

between independently sailing British and French ships of the line - Needs rewriting, and the first sentence of the lead doesn't follow smoothly into the next. Needs clarification that the battle was between the two ships; it is said in the second paragraph of the lead but at present these two sentences do not flow together.

The Treaty of Tilsit in 1807 had resulted in a Russian withdrawal from the Adriatic and the French takeover of strategic island fortress - plural of fortress needed.

as the new ship of the line outgunned the British frigates that operated with impunity in the Adriatic - Use a different word than impunity, as it is quite an advanced word and a little confusing as well.

The loss of the French escorts allowed Victorious to close with Rivoli unopposed and at 04:30 the two large ships began a furious artillery duel at close range - remove 'furious'.

command devolving on Lieutenant Thomas Peake - Replace devolve with something simpler - perhaps '...and Lieutenant Thomas Peake assumed command'

Peake recalled Weasel to block the French ship's attempts to escape by sailing in front of Rivoli and repeatedly raking her. - raking her 'with cannon fire' or whatever weapons were used, for clarification.

I would suggest: 'Peake recalled Weasel to block the French ship's attempts to escape, which the ship achieved by sailing in front of Rivoli and repeatedly raking her with cannon fire.'

Losses aboard Victorious were lighter but still heavy - Confusing, needs clarification.

French losses on Mercure, although unknown exactly, were severe, only three sailors surviving when the ship's magazines suddenly detonated. - Can be simplified to just three men surviving.

• What was so good about the Rivoli that it would challenge British dominance? You make only fleeting reference to the fact that it outgunned British frigates.

I have addressed all the above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: Fail

• These efforts were hampered by the poverty of the Italian government and the difficulty that the French Navy had in manning and equipping their ships. - Needs a citation

• By the time this ship, Rivoli, was launched, the Royal Navy had gained total dominance over the French in the Adriatic Sea. - Needs citation

• The French head-start had enabled Rivoli to gain a substantial distance on the British ship, and so it was not until 02:30 on 22 February that Talbot was able to close with her quarry and its escort. Not wishing to be held up by the escort ships protecting Rivoli... This whole paragraph needs at least one more citation.

• Jéna also engaged Weasel but the greater distance between these ships allowed Commander Andrew to focus his attack on Mercure, which fought hard for twenty minutes before being destroyed in a catastrophic explosion, probably caused by a fire in the magazine. - Need a citation for this last bit please.

• This was the last significant ship-to-ship action in the Adriatic, French and Italian shipyards continuing to build ships but the naval authorities unwilling to risk their destruction in the manner of Rivoli. - Citation, please

• Reference Nine - what are these accounts and where are they from? A book? If so, page number and author as per usual please.

For all the above, they were all cited by the next citation to appear. I therefore added a new citation to make sure the origin of the fact was clear. I think that this makes the article a little too heavily cited, but that is not a serious problem. (By the eway, there were two citations in the paragraph you said had none, have I got the right one?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I won't fail it for this, but those redlinks probably need to either be stubbed out or removed entirely.

I don't want to do this as I do not have enough information to stub these but I know an editor who is working on such articles and I want them to link when he does.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the references, is it 'Gardiner' or 'Gardinier'?

• In the infobox, I would suggest adding the names of the ships that are known, for accuracy and to make it less vague.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

• Given what I imagine is a dearth of sources on the matter, it is a well-rounded article, although more detail on the Rivoli and whe she was so dangerous is required as highlighted above.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

• No problems here

5. Article stability? Pass

• Stable, no editwars

6. Images?: Pass

• No images. It would be nice to have some, but I won't fail the article for that.

I would love to have an image for this, but I haven't found one yet frustratingly. I will keep looking.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. It really is an interesting article which would make excellent GA material once these issues have been addressed.

Thankyou for your review, I think I have addressed all the issues you have raised.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Excellent work, and so quick! If you can get rid of the '1' in front of the two ship names in the infobox, I think this article is ready to be passed! (By the way, did Rivoli not have a prefix like HMS? Just wondering.) Skinny87 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)