Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombardment of Papeete/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 SandyGeorgia 01:17, 16 July 2010 [1].

Bombardment of Papeete edit

Bombardment of Papeete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel it meets the standards of a featured article. XavierGreen (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can a ship take shore leave? - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the wording to reflect that the crews took shore leave.XavierGreen (talk)
  • My French is bad, but I think I can make out that Destremau got no recognition at the time he died, but was posthumously awarded the "Rosette de la Légion d’honneur"; even a very small award would seem more significant to me than a "eulogy", but maybe I'm misunderstanding what "eulogy" means. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've skimmed the A-class review and I'm inclined to support, but this article is a bit short for FAC and I'd like to see some reviews first. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have used virtually every reliable english source available to compile this article. The only information i have found regarding destremau himself in english was from some ww1 forums (which i could not use as a wiki source). The end of the article does state that destremau recieved no recognition before his death but was awarded the legion of honor afterwords. Thats about all i was able to find out about him from reliable online sources.XavierGreen (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that edit, that's what I was asking for. Okay, other than helping to field copyediting questions if you want the help, I'm done here, and I'll probably be supporting unless significant objections are raised. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 11:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

I only have time to check out the beginning of the article at the moment, skiving off in work and all!, and have the following comments.

  • Infobox
    • Should the German Empire flag not be used over the naval ensign?
      • The french naval ensign is the same as its flag. Some naval battle articles use ensigns yet others use national flags. For world war one naval battle articles i think there are more with ensigns in the infobox. For example the abattle of jutland uses ensigns while the battle of heligoland bight uses national flags.XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would suggest using the national flags; all land battle articles i have worked on use the national flag over the armed forces flag as do the various aerial battle articles i have looked at.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No references supporting the forces involved or the casualties inflicted – i.e. a failure of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c
      • I added some of the previously used refereces to the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we also add them into the casualty section too so that we know the source for the zero German losses and the vraious French losses, at a glance. Likewise next to the various outcomes of the battle. CheersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, this is the only other outstanding issue i have. Can we add some citations to backup the casualties in the infobox? RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outcome, while obviously the French received a bloody nose from the battle surely this is a little too simple per the lede; the capture of the coal was the objective of the attack and not achieved plus the over-consumption of ammo had long term dire effects for the German force. Is it possible to expand this to a few words to cover all aspects (I assume it is sourced since it is in the lede)?
    • Ranks should not be included in the infobox
  • Lede
    • “Virtually no damage was received by the two German cruisers; the French forces lost their gunboat.” Is the semi-colon required, should it not just be something like “while the French …”
      • The semicolon was mine; I agree that it's a bit "abrupt", but reviewers have specific objections to almost every conjunction we might stick there. We had a big argument over "while" in the A-class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, but I'm with you here, I like "while" and I'll insert that. Xavier, this is of course your article, and I haven't even had a chance to talk with you about it so I apologize for pawing it over :) I'll be happy to stop, but I generally try to make myself available for copyediting questions on ship FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cheers for the change, over the last year or so started using them all over the place there great ;) But i dont think it fitted too well here so hopefully there shouldnt be too much disagreement ;p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • “The engagement had little direct effect on the outcome of World War I” – is this really necessary, so early in the war and for such a small action?
      • Again, good call, I think. It's gone. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Appreicate the swiftness of action. Per before i will try and go through the rest of the article later.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments
    • First World War portal link needs to be added to the article
    • A link to the commons needs to be added if there are further photos/diagrams etc on the battle there
There are none, i created all of the ones that currently exist. Every other language wikipedia's article (including the french wikipedia) on this battle is a carbon copy of a much lower quality version of this article from when it was start class.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A none issue then, cheersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the further reading section should be done away with, if the book has not been used.
The problem is that this is the most detailed work on this battle, unfortunately its in print only and in french. Which means i could not read it at all except for some small excerpts which i had already gotten the same information from other sources. I put it there because someone serious about studying this action who could read french would probably want to take a look at it.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we can let it slide considering its importance unless others have the same objection.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • ”Word of war reached ... while at Ponape (17 July to 6 August).” Do these dates refer to period that the admiral was based at Ponape? If so i would recommend rewording the sentence to clearly state so.
I do not know for certain, though they were in german territory at the time and the wirelesses were still functioning so it was probly transmitted via radio once tsingtao recieved word. I cand dig a little deeper if nessesary.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think any further digging is required, if its what the sources state and they are not any more specific i dont think its a problem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you we know how von Spree knew about the French coal stocks?
Everyone in the area knew about them, its like how people today know theres a gas station on so and so street.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources mention that it was a well known fact? If so could a a few words just be added?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jose states that during the time Spee spent at Bora Bora he learned of the location and size of the coal stocks at papeete. I added some further information about it to the background section.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it, the rest of the article looks good and is an interesting read. Its a little on the short side but i dont think you can hold that agaisnt such a small action. It seems well sourced and not obvious problems in that regards bar the infobox.

Thanks.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced the infobox via the information in the article however i dont appear to see in the main body of the article anything on the shore batteries being destroyed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because they weren't destroyed, the sources only say they were silenced (which most likely was a result of the gun crews running off or something). Someone else added that to a very early version of the article i believe and ive never been able to find a source confirming that they were destroyed. As such i have removed it from the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources look good, no outstanding issues (I'd lose the redlinks in the refs list, though) Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. An interesting article, not quite at FA standard yet but could be soon.

Sources. ""Bombardment of Papeete". American Forestry (Washington, D.C.: The American Forestry Association) XXI. 1915. Retrieved November 21, 2009." - I would regard this as a primary source, so we shouldn't use it in the article. Otherwise fine - I am particularly impressed to see gudmundsson's On Armour used as a source in this context ;-
Prose. The prose needs some work to meet criterion 1a. Here are some examples...
"on his way to rendezvousing"
"von Spee hoped to seize the coal piles to refuel and raise his mens' morale"
"two unidentified cruisers were sighted by the French entering the harbor of Papeete"
"The ammunition depleted as a result of the action at Papeete contributed to the German East Asia Squadron's failure"
I think i managed to fix these.XavierGreen (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also two factual points. How did the gunboat in the harbour fight back if all of its guns had been removed? And how did word of the attack reach the British if the island had no wireless station?

Regards, The Land (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Zelee the background section of the article states that she retained her 100-millimeter (3.9 in) bow gun as well as a handful of sailors. These sailors manned the bow gun and resisted until they were forced to abandon the Zelee. The other issues I shall take a look at this evening.XavierGreen (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly on criterion 1a, but also 1b

  • It's not clear on which day von Spee actually received news of the war.
  • In my opinion, the background section doesn't provide enough context. For instance, while we know about the ships in von Spee's squadron, the reader's told nothing about the French naval forces in the area or whether von Spee's squadron was on their own. Why was the East Asia theatre important? How did the French find out about the planned attack on Papeete? Was it guesswork or did their intelligence suggest it's what the German forces would do?
The strength of the French forces at tahiti is clearly given, other french forces in the theater that have nothing to do with this engagement and never met or engaged any enemy force througout the entire war have nothing to do with this action so why should they be listed? I think it would be more appropriate to list those details in the article concerning the theater rahter than a particular engagement of that theater. As for the why the theater was important, i believe that to belongs in the article about the theater and not here, since this article is merely about a action that occured during that theater and not the entire history of the theater it self. The only thing the French forces at tahiti knew about the german forces was that the germans had been sighted near samoa. That is clearly stated in the background section.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before sailing to Papeete, Spee intended to coal at Suwarrow Atoll but was prevented by foul weather": this could do with rephrasing. I'd recommend something along the lines of "Von Spee intended to coal at Suwarrow Atoll before sailing to Papeete, but was prevented by foul weather."
  • There's some inconsistency between the use of either Spee or von Spee.
  • Why is settlements of "French Settlements" capitalised?
    • Because it is the proper name of French Polynesia during the time period. French Settlements in Oceania is the name of the french possesion that the island of tahiti belonged to in 1914.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towards the end of the background section, the two German cruisers are suddenly at Papeete having been resupplying at Bora Bora. There's no explanation of the transition. And what were Nürnberg and Titania doing? Earlier it’s mentioned that they guarded the colliers while the cruisers went off the resupply, but it's not explained what they did once the cruisers had got the coal they needed.
    • The article clearly states that Titania and Nurnberg were sent to Nukahiva to guard the squadrons colliers while the two armoured cruisers attacked papeete. The armoured cruisers saild from bora bora to Papeete, there were no events in between.
  • Why does the second paragraph of the battle section start by jumping back to the start of the battle? It should be ordered chronologically.
  • "By now most of the town's inhabitants had fled and the town had caught fire from the German shelling": repetition of town, could be rephrased.
  • Why isn't it mentioned earlier that the harbour was mined?
    • Because it wasn't actually mined, Spee was afraid that their might be mines in the harbour. He didnt actually know if there were or not but decided not to enter to be on the safe side.
  • The details of the article from the American Forestry journal need to be elaborated, ie: author and page number, and the references in the article changed accordingly.
    • The page numbers are listed for the citations, the author is not definatevely given in the journal because he wanted to remain anonymous for diplomatic purposes. Though i do have an idea of who the author most likely is, the journal does not state this directly.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the page numbers for the The Journal of Geography and The Worlds Work articles?
  • Does the source call the engagement a German victory? After all, the article says the aim of the expedition was to secure the coal, which was a failure.
    • There were three main objectives, to capture the coal, to sink enemy shipping, and to raise the morale of the german crews since they did not see any action since leaving micronesia. This is clearly stated in the background section. Despite not taking the coal piles, the ships in the harbour were destroyed and the german morale was raised as is stated in the aftermath section. Perhaps it should be changed to minor german victory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...by his misinformed superior officer": so what did the officer think had happened?
    • The officer thought that Destremau did poorly in his defense of tahiti and in losing his vessel. I have made this a bit more clear in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some copy edits to the article, but in places the prose just isn't clear, and the structure is not straightforward. The chronology bounces around a little and in some places more detail is required. The above is not a comprehensive list of problems with the prose and the article could do with a thorough copy edit. The article is decent though, so good luck with improving it. Nev1 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2010 (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/Bombardment_of_Papeete/archive1&oldid=373793698"