Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of Battle in the Algeciras Campaign/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Order of Battle in the Algeciras Campaign

Featured list candidates/Order of Battle in the Algeciras Campaign/archive1

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, its been three years since I last submitted one of these OoB articles, but this follows the pattern of the six others I've done. This lists the orders of battle and casualties of two linked battles fought at sea off Gibraltar in 1801. Although not first rank battles, they are most interesting as the first was a rare defeat for the Royal Navy during this war. Any comments welcome. Regards Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note sorry it's taken anyone this long to get back to you. I'll make a full review of this tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is it "Algeciras Campaign" or "Algeciras campaign"?

Campaign is better, although I've just realised that the B in battle in the article title shouldn't be capitalised. Seems only administrators can move it though . . .--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If uncontroversial, leave me a message on my talk page to move it, if not, add it to WP:RM. Best to deal with these things when we find them! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"fought between a " .. " against a"... surely just "and" rather than "against" here, i.e. "between A and B" rather than "between A against B"?
" to join with the" no need for "with".
"calling off the attack at 13:35" you didn't say what time the battle started.
You link "gunboat" but not "ship of the line", which is probably more deserving.
Please ensure the tables are set up for compliance with MOS:DTT which means adding col scopes as a minimum.

Is this a new thing? I've passed several of these lists in past without using this system. In any case, I think it now meets the requirements.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonably new. It's to help our readers with WP:ACCESS issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure just using a flag icon to designate Navy (some of which don't even click through) is not good enough. Suggest you have some words instead.

That's a shame, table is a lot less colourful now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could use both. You certainly shouldn't rely on just an icon for people to understand which navy you're referring to... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: be consistent with the full stops, usually only for complete sentences.
I make it 135 killed in the first table.
I make it 239 injured in the first table.

These serve me right for relying on sources and not checking the figures myself!

First row total in first table is incorrect.
Commander of Perla? If unknown I would say as much.

I have not been able to find his name in any reliable source, although I imagine time in the Spanish naval archives could turn it up. The Perla situation is very odd - not one source makes any mention of Perla in their descriptions of the battle and yet all include the frigate in their tally of Spanish losses in the battle. I even found a non-RS Spanish language website that stated clearly that Perla was not at the battle at all (although obviously as its non-RS I have to go with what I have available). What should I do if the information exists but is not available in any reliable source I've been able to find?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a note to exactly this extent. That he is named in possibly unreliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, replies above. If I haven't replied I've just fixed the problem. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, you're more than welcome. Again, I'm sorry you had to wait so long for comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.