Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Caldera Bay/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 03:00, 26 December 2012 [1].

Battle of Caldera Bay

edit

Battle of Caldera Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is as in depth and detailed as you can get on nine minutes of gunfire and explosions. Everything flows well, everything is cited well, two good pictures... to sum things up, I see no way this can't pass FAC, despite it's size. Buggie111 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - The article is well written, though some small grammar issues need attending. Regarding the content, I'm a bit concerned on its size. Have you really researched the topic? You seem to rely heavily on very few references. Also, some of your sources are poorly formatted (#2). Lastly, your book cited notes should be able to link to the bibliography on the bottom.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't gotten into combing page 5-10 of Google Books, but I've found very few reliable sources on the topic. Searching in books gives many somewhat relevant books with "Limited PReview", books that give a sentence on the battle, and books about volcanoes. Will get to the refs soon. Buggie111 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't see what's wrong with the NYT page. Also, what do you mean by "link to the biblio on the bottom"? Buggie111 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two instances of confusing it's/its in one brief thread (one nom + three posts); one contributor actually transgressed while speaking of a need for grammar checks. FAC and grammar need to be re-wedded somehow. That is all. GlitchCraft (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making a small grammar error while typing this at 4am does not disqualify me from differentiating what are professional prose, so yeah. As for Buggie, the source dates and accessdates don't follow the same pattern. Also, it would be beneficial to link the work in the reference. As for the bibliography linking, they are working now (for some reason they weren't last night). I will later take a more in depth look on the topic in order to possibly give a more precise opinion on the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • never said it disqualifies you; only said "be careful, please."

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Image review

The lead pic can't be verified because it seems the entire archive is down. I got a 503 error on my comp. Will do the second pic.

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This very large amount of money I will hand to you makes it a high quality reliable source. Urp, I don't know. I'll get to work finding a replacement. Buggie111 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have the winning Powerball ticket? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a duplicate on which is currently being gold-plated. How does this look? Buggie111 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but nothing modern? It'd be better to have something published within the last 50 years .. instead of within the last 120... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've found replacement refs, and this time, they actually improve the quality of something! Buggie111 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – you really should find a copy of volume one of Latin America's Wars by Robert Scheina, which I suspect would have somewhat significant coverage. His other work, Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987, gives about four sentences, but it cites William Clowes, Four Modern Naval Campaigns (London: Unit Library, 1902), which is available online here. Also, the battle description is wrong. They approached from the same direction, but while Condell turned around and went up the starboard side, Lynch went around Condell's stern and went up the port side, in between Condell and Biobio. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start a'lookin for it. Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead should have at least a sentence noting the impact of this incident on torpedo development.
  • The citation needed tag on the article needs to be fixed.
  • Have you consulted the above book suggested by The ed17? Also you should modify the description of the torpedo boats per his suggestion, as currently worded it's somewhat confusing.

Would be happy to support after my comments are addressed. —Ed!(talk) 13:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Are any links available for "Balmacedist" or "Congressional" in the lede?
  • The first phrase of the background isn't great. "In 1891, after a series of struggles about multinational nitrate interests..." Multinational is linked to multinational corporation, and nitrate is linked to nitrate, which is a chemistry article more than anything. So neither the phrase itself, nor the links, really give the lay reader access to information about the source of this conflict. Unfortunately the WP article on the civil war is not very enlightening. Both the civil war article and this article really would benefit from brief text (perhaps no more than a sentence) that gave some clarity to what the conflict was actually about.
  • The WP article states "The dissolution split both the Chilean Army and Navy, with some forces remaining loyal to Congress and others to the President." The source supporting this sentence is the NYT 1894 piece. That piece states "The rebellion of the Chilean fleet robbed the Government of Balmaceda of every available seagoing vessel..." This does not sound to me like the navy was split, and indeed the WP article on the civil war (while not a great article) also refers to rebellion of the navy and has this text: "[Around 1891] command of the sea was held by Montt's squadron (January). The rank and file of the army remained faithful to the executive, and thus in the early part of the war the Gobiernistas, speaking broadly, possessed an army without a fleet, the congress a fleet without an army." I think therefore this needs revision, and would be imprved by reference to a text about the civil war in general, rather than relying on an 1894 description from the NYT (which, incidentally, has a bit of a POV tone).
  • Otherwise quite good, and the bit about the lesson learned from this battle regarding torpedoes, and its consequences, was interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Cryptic C62: I do not believe that this article adequately summarizes all of the available literature. A Google books search of "Blanco Encalada torpedo" returns over 4,000 results, and the article currently only makes use of 7 sources. After a bit of digging, it is clear to me that these sources are not redundant with those used in the article, and thusly should not be ignored:

  • The first paragraph of Battle says that all of the action happened on the 21st and 22nd of April, but this and this source say that it happened on the 22nd and 23rd.
  • This source mentions the involvement of the HMS Champion, which is not mentioned in the article.
  • This source discusses how much cheaper the Condell and Lynch were to produce than the Blanco Encalada, an important point that is not mentioned in the article.
  • This source suggests that the sinking of the Blanco Encalada caused the US Navy to invest in several hundred torpedoes, a point which is not mentioned in the article.

To put it simply, the research phase of this article is not done yet. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opposes. I'll be out of town for the next five days, so I'd like this FAC closed. MY previous two FAcs were about ships, and thus the Google Books terms I needed to check were sparse. I had hit all of the variations of "Battle of Caldera Bay", but didn't think about using the ship names. I"ll get to work on this. Anybody who has unfulfilled their desire to critique my edits is invited to join Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections/archive2, which has a substantially higher chance of being promoted. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good edit spree. Buggie111 (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget: Thanks for putting in the time to bring this article to where it is now. If you end up submitting it for FAC again later on down the road, feel free to leave a message at my talk page, and I would be happy to take another look. Keep up the good work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Caldera_Bay/archive1&oldid=1138455535"