Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Mykonos
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Battle of Mykonos edit
... that although the French commander vowed never to surrender before the Battle of Mykonos, he was proved wrong within 70 minutes?- ALT1... that following its capture at the Battle of Mykonos in 1794, French frigate Sibylle became "one of the finest frigates" of the Royal Navy?
- Reviewed: La Nymphe surprise
Created/expanded by Jackyd101 (talk). Self nominated at 19:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
Article creation date okay. Article length okay. Article neutrality fine, sourcing looks good, a couple of copyvio spotchecks came up clean. QPQ a bit cursory but done. Image okay, long out of any copyright.
- However, I don't think the hook is quite fair – read alone it gives the impression that the French commander gave up unreasonably quickly, when in fact as the article points out the ships were at close-range, stationary positions firing full broadside, and the French were clearly losing with nearly half of them casualties. Surrendering at that point seems like the fully sane and honourable thing to do. If there was any criticism of Rondeau for this action among naval or government circles, the article should say so. Otherwise, I think the hook should be modified or replaced.
- The article is good overall but there are a few other things I noticed. In the caption it would be good to give the date of the painting (to see how far after the fact it was). The sentence beginning "by contrast the losses on ..." needs capitalisation. The quote "not, in reality, a decided overmatch for a 40-gun French frigate" needs in-text attribution – is this the opinion of an investigation, an official history, or some later naval historian? Or if there are no dissenting opinions, just paraphrase it. Same with the "one of the finest frigates in the Navy" quote – either say who is saying this or paraphrase. The two sentences beginning with "In 1799, ..." are off-topic to this article and should be removed - that action and others are already covered in the article about Sibylle. The bold "Note A" inside of Note A is redundant. The London Gazette link isn't working for me. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for all this. In reply to your answers, I don't think the hook does give that impression, but if that's your opinion then fair enough. The sources quite rightly agree with you that Rondeau's surrender was the only practical option, but James does criticise him for making an oath which he subsequently broke - such things were taken much more seriously in those days than they are now and a broken oath would have been remembered by friends and enemies alike whatever the circumstances under which it was made. Thanks also for your further comments - I've thought about it and I'm going to leave the quotes as they are (with attributions) and I strongly disagree that the information on the later action is off-topic: it is a clear example of the importance of the capture of the frigate to the Royal Navy and part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that we can create a web of easily accessible links between related subjects such as these two engagements. --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that although the French commander at the Battle of Mykonos had vowed never to surrender, he broke that vow within 70 minutes? EEng (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like ALT1 due to it not really being about the battle and to using an unattributed quotation again. ALT2 suffers the same problem as the original, and is especially bad if it reinforces the stupid cheese-eating surrender monkeys image regarding the French. To me, the hook to modern audiences is what you are saying about how back then, some people considered a broken oath as being worse than suffering the rest of your ship as casualties. Maybe you can work up something around that. As for the later action in the aftermath section, why pick that one instead of the many other actions Sibylle participated in? If I had to pick one it would be the role in suppressing the slave trade ... but I wouldn't pick any, just link again to the other article again at the end (what you say about the beauty of the web argues against including the 1799 material twice in WP, not for it). By the way your current text for this has a red-linked 'famous action', an amusing WP oxymoron if ever there was one. Also note you introduced an uncapitalised 'french'. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- TLDR. My intent was only to CE the hook to not make it sound like surrender-before-battle was contemplated, and to fix the weirdness of breaking a vow being presented as a form of being "proven wrong". If the commander really made the vow but surrendered nonetheless, it's a perfectly good hook, surrender monkeys notwithstanding. And it's better to just fix the capitalis(z)ation than write whole sentences about it here. EEng (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the comments. I guess its all just a matter of opinion - I genuinely didn't mean to or think that the hook did imply the cheese-eating surrender monkeys image. No one who studies Napoleonic naval history (and in particular this guy) believes in something so silly. Its a red link because I haven't written it yet - there aren't a lot of editors working in this field, but it doesn't mean that the action wasn't famous in its day. In any case, your notes have been helpful and appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Typo fixed. Good to go. You guys pick whatever hook you like. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- TLDR. My intent was only to CE the hook to not make it sound like surrender-before-battle was contemplated, and to fix the weirdness of breaking a vow being presented as a form of being "proven wrong". If the commander really made the vow but surrendered nonetheless, it's a perfectly good hook, surrender monkeys notwithstanding. And it's better to just fix the capitalis(z)ation than write whole sentences about it here. EEng (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like ALT1 due to it not really being about the battle and to using an unattributed quotation again. ALT2 suffers the same problem as the original, and is especially bad if it reinforces the stupid cheese-eating surrender monkeys image regarding the French. To me, the hook to modern audiences is what you are saying about how back then, some people considered a broken oath as being worse than suffering the rest of your ship as casualties. Maybe you can work up something around that. As for the later action in the aftermath section, why pick that one instead of the many other actions Sibylle participated in? If I had to pick one it would be the role in suppressing the slave trade ... but I wouldn't pick any, just link again to the other article again at the end (what you say about the beauty of the web argues against including the 1799 material twice in WP, not for it). By the way your current text for this has a red-linked 'famous action', an amusing WP oxymoron if ever there was one. Also note you introduced an uncapitalised 'french'. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
