Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Caldera Bay

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Caldera Bay

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. Caldera was promoted to GA not too long ago in November, and I think it meets the A-Class criteria at present. RL will have a hold over me for most of next week, but after that, I'll be able to quickly respond to comments. Buggie111 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: G'day, to be honest, I'm not sure that this will have the legs to make it through FAC, as the main part (the Battle section) is quite short. Nevertheless, I've reviewed the article for mainly presentation and prose. I will leave content to others with more knowledge. Hopefully you will find these comments helpful. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with:
    • in the image caption, the ship name should probably be presented in italics for consistency of style;
    • are the redlinked commanders in the infobox notable enough for articles? I don't know, but you should probably consider it carefully and remove if necessary, or prior to FAC (if you are thinking that way), consider creating stubs;
    • there is information presented in the lead, that doesn't appear elsewhere: "although a Turkish armed steamer, named the Intibah, had been sunk earlier during the Russo-Turkish War". You don't mention the name of the ship in the Aftermath where you mention in the incident. Also in the lead it is an armed steamer, but in the Aftermath a merchant ship. Is that the same thing?
    • "Chilean Navy" is probably overlinked in the Background section;
    • I don't really know what this means "after a series of struggles with multinational nitrate interests". What is a nitrate interest and how does a person have a struggle with one? Do you mean "struggles about multinational nitrate interests"?
    • I think you need a second comma here: "and Commander Juan Fuentes of the Almirante Lynch were informed" (specifically after Almirante Lynch);
    • "built the Confederate raider Alabama thirty years before", might need a wikilink to explain "Confederate";
    • "including Almirante Condell and Almirante Lynch". It probably needs to be stated what type of vessels these were here. In the infobox you say torpedo boats. Perhaps try: "including the torpedo boats, Almirante Condell and Almirante Lynch,";
    • there is a mixture of date format in the article, for example "23 April 1891" but also "April 18". Either is fine but it should be consistent;
    • inconsistent capitalisation: "others to the President" and "equipped than the forces loyal to the president";
    • there is a mixture of US and British English variation. For example "armoured" (British), but "maneuver" and "realized" (US);
    • "informed of the possibility that the Blanco Encalada was going to be in Caldera Bay in five days". Informed by who?
      • this hasn't been actioned yet. If the sources don't say, then that is fine, but please let me know. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "informed of the possibility that the Blanco Encalada was going to be in Caldera Bay in five days." It probably should be stated that the Blanco Encalada was a Congressionalist ship here. Perhaps try: "informed of the possibility that the Blanco Encalada, a Congressionalist frigate, was going to be in Caldera Bay in five days";
    • "arrived at Caldera Bay on 22 April". (Probably could add a wikilink to Caldera Bay here);
    • "The Blanco Encalada arrived at Caldera Bay on 22 April, under the command of Captain Goni; escorting several transports" (I'm not sure about the use of the semi colon here. A comma would probably do IMO);
    • sometimes you say "the Blanco Encalada" and sometimes just "Blanco Encalada", seems inconsistent. I believe that the ships writers on Wiki have a rule, but I can't really remember it (I suspect they would say to drop "the");
      • this is still inconsistent. Can you please action this one? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thought I did......... could you tell me where it's wrong? I think the title won't sound right if changed to "Sinking of Blanco Encalada"
          • for instance: "lasted seven minutes, and Blanco Encalada" and "from Blanco Encalada, both boats" v. "The sinking of the Blanco Encalada led to an attack", etc. It's a minor point, and I won't oppose on it. Maybe we should get some opinions from Dank, Parsecboy and Sturmvogel, about whether to use "the" or not? To be honest I've really got no idea, it just seems inconsistent the way it is currently done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although it was known that Balmacedist torpedo boats were nearby, it was believed that they would not attack the transports". Believed by whom?
    • "set out toward Caldera Bay". (How far away from Quinteros Bay was Caldera Bay? It might pay to add this in somewhere to provide some context about what was required for the torpedo boats to close on the Blanco Encalada;
      • this hasn't been actioned. Do the sources give any information in this regard? If they don't then that is fine, but please let me know that you have checked. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • inconsistent: "at the Congressional ironclad" but then elsewhere you call it a frigate (infobox);
    • in the Aftermath: "the Congressional cause, the battle of La Placilla" (probably should add a wikilink for "Battle of La Placilla", even if it is red);
    • probably need a second comma here: "her sistership, the Almirante Cochrane which" (specifically after "Cochrane" to denote the subordinate clause);
    • these two statements seem a little at odds: "The battle affected the remainder of the Chilean Civil War" and then "Although the sinking did hamper the Congressional cause, the battle of La Placilla on 28 August sealed the fate of the Balmacedist government";
    • "and three days later, Congressional forces marched into Santiago". Which resulted in what exactly? As the article is quite small, it probably wouldn't hurt to provide a bit more context on the periphery at either end;
      • this hasn't been actioned. Do you think it important? If not, please let me know. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will do. Won't be much, just "ended civil war".
    • "Navies of several major powers realized the potential of torpedoes". Was this as a result of the Battle of Caldera Bay? If so, it should probably be made more clearer, e.g.: "News of the attack spread and as a result of the action, navies of several major powers realized the potential of torpedoes..."
    • I'd be tempted to just roll the "Aftermath" and "Impact on torpedo use" sections together, deleting the "Impact on torpedo use" header;
      • this has been done. The header could probably just be "Aftermath", IMO, but its not a warstopper. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this needs a citation: "Torpedo boats also sank two armoured cruisers and two destroyers during the course of the war";
    • in the Notes section, the two web links should be fully formatted, providing publisher and accessdate information. You might consider using the {{cite web}} template, but it is not a requirement;
    • in the References, this title seems strangely punctuated and capitalised: "Dark Days in Chile; an Account of the Revolution of 1891". It should probably be "Dark Days in Chile: An Account of the Revolution of 1891". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done this for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day, I've gone through and marked the comments that have been completed. I've done a couple for you also. Please check my edits and make sure that you agree. There are a few that I couldn't do, because it requires knowledge of the sources and or personal editorial judgement, so I've left them to you. I also have a couple more questions which came to me when reading again. Please review and let me know your thoughts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Battle section, "Only fifty-six men, including Captain Goni, survived out of the 268 that were aboard at the time". Do the sources say how these men survived? Were they rescued by another vessel, or swam to shore, etc? If the sources say, it might pay to provide this information given that the Battle section is quite small;
      • They don't say. I'd assume they swam. Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, if the sources don't say anything in this regard, don't worry about it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Aftermath you mention "sinking of the Blanco Encalada led to an attack on her sistership, the Almirante Cochrane, which failed..." It might pay to state when and where this took place. Was it undertaken by the same vessels that attacked Blanco Encalada? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
    • Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
    • The image use is PD and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
    • Do we know Goni's first name?
    • I would consider moving the 4th paragraph of the "Background" section into the "Battle" section as it seems relevant there. Also I would then split the single large paragraph in the battle section into two as I think this would improve the narrative flow and balance (fairly minor almost cosmetic suggestion I agree).
    • This seems a little awkward gramatically: "The sinking of Blanco Encalada led to an attack on her sistership by Condell and Lynch, the Almirante Cochrane, at that time moored at Iquique." Consider rewording to something like: "The sinking of Blanco Encalada led to an attack by Condell and Lynch on her sistership, the Almirante Cochrane, at that time moored at Iquique."
    • Where is Iquique? Can this be wikilinked?
    • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of citations, specifically "Hervey, pg 198". All other citations use the format "Hervey, p. 198".
    • This needs an endash in the date range: "Wilson, Herbert (1897). Ironclads in Action: A Sketch of Naval Warfare from 1855-1895, With Some Account of the Development of the Battleship in England". Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay :p. All done. Buggie111 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too easy. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I'm pretty confident this was not the first ever successful attack by a torpedo boat against an enemy warship. Based on a Google Books search, Sondhaus' Naval Warfare 1815-1914 says the first warship sunk by self-propelled torpedo was in 1880 but the ship that fired the torpedo might not have been a torpedo boat type ship. Based on what you wrote about the Turkish steamer I don't think that's what you meant but it might have been what the source meant; I suppose you can be first at anything if you slice and dice the facts enough! Also, your source for this little tidbit is pretty obscure, is only for this one fact and I can't verify it - maybe you could use Sondhaus or another source? Removing the assertion would be an easy fix as well. Kirk (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed this was on the talk page as well - change it to "The first ironclad warship sunk by a self-propelled torpedo." Source:[4] and I think its good. Kirk (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • Technical: reflinks, dablinks and checklinks throw up no issues
    • Copyright: text spot check shows only WP mirrors; image status is good
    • Sourcing/factual accuracy: spot check of sources against article looks good (obviously online sources only); ISBNs accurate
    • Prose: generally good, though it may benefit from a light copyedit for narrative flow in places. I only have one question (not affecting this review outcome): "The two commanders consulted with one another and sent their proposal to attack Blanco Encalada to the government, which was approved." With congress and the presidency on opposite sides, who was "the government"?

      That's it from me :) Congratulations on an interesting article. EyeSerenetalk 11:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Caldera_Bay&oldid=476110326"