Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nyon Conference

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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) 11:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nyon Conference

edit
Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems a natural progression for the article, which recently underwent a peer review. Hoping to put it to FAC in the future as well. Keen to hear your thoughts. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 07:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • why's the UK spelt out in full while the Soviet Union isn't?
  • "Britain the UK and France would" you either use Britain or the UK
  • "plans to attack aggressive submarines" whose submarines?
  • wikify Italy at first mention.
  • "although Italy the former did take" too many mentions of Italy.
  • "Meanwhile, the Iride unsuccessfully attacked the British destroyer Havock, unsuccessfully, This strengthened strengthening British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden's stance towards Italy." Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've acted on these things with the exception of the point about whose submarines they were, as this was not the subject of discussion at the conference (perhaps surprisingly). It was not intended to be a conference about particular nations' submarines, but those in general. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Italy would be allowed to join the agreement and patrol the Tyrrhenian Sea if wished" - if it wished, or if someone else wished?
  • "wished ships with a clear identifying mark to be excluded, this was impractical" and similar: check use of commas vs semicolons
  • Should use double quotations marks instead of single for quotes
  • In what order are you placing your sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed re: the first three things (I'll continue to check for further instances where a semicolon would be more appropriate). I've reordered the sources such that books are by (first) surname and journals, since two have no identifiable author, by date of publication. This happens to also be the order one may have chosen to put them if one were ordering them alphabetically by journal (if you chose "Bulletin, Bulletin, English and International" as the operative words respectively. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I hope I've managed to sort the latter two points. Could you clarify the first? As far as I understand, the relevant passage is this:
It was decided that French and British fleets patrol the areas of sea west of Malta and attack any suspicious submarines. The division of patrols between the United Kingdom and France would be decided by their governments. They would patrol both the high seas and territorial waters of signatory countries. The possibility of the Tyrrhenian Sea coming under Italian patrols was agreed. In the Eastern Mediterranean, British and French ships would patrol up to the Dardanelles, but not in the Adriatic Sea. In this area, signatory countries would patrol their own territorial waters, and would provide any reasonable assistance to the French and British patrols.
(Formatting removed.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You say submarines are allowed to have "activity in certain areas." What are those areas?
  • You say the Italians ceased their pirate operations. Is this just them randomly attacking the Havock and the Soviets, or were they doing more traditional pirating? Also, do you know why they were being pirates?
  • The second agreement, was it just by signed by the French and British? If so, perhaps that should be mentioned. If not, then when did they go to Geneva. After all, you only mention British and French going to Geneva.
  • I'm a bit confused about this sentence: The British wanted the Spanish parties to be able to verify flags, thereby preventing innocent British shipping being attacked if Republican ships continued to use the British flag as a means of escape. Perhaps I'm foolish but can't they always verify flags??
  • You say that the Italians and Nationalists switched to air attacks? Perhaps you should say earlier that the clause against attacking aircraft was not effective or something.

Just some quick comments. DemonicInfluence (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy in this context means acting 'without instruction' from a government (in this case, not making such a thing clear). The Italians simply didn't want to officially be attacking shipping in a foreign relations sense. They did this apparent contradiction - everyone knew they were doing but still denying it officially - on other issues as part of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War.
The second point is the wording of source. I think it's important to remember that, according to the other sources, the French and British were doing the drafting bit, and everyone else the agreeing - the official discussions - in other words, the British and French had 'camps', the other nations merely representatives. (E.g. 'Proceedings took two forms: discussions between the British and French, and formal situations.').
I'm no maritime law expert but the sources couldn't be clearer. Apparently "The first paper asked that both sides in the war be granted rights to stop ships at sea and verify their flags. Chatfield said that many Republican ships were hoisting the British flag to avoid capture and that as a result, innocent British ships were being attacked by the Nationalists. But in practice, to allow both sides to verify flags would have benefited the Nationalists greatly, and the French strongly opposed the proposal which was dropped." "Verify" probably means comijng aboard and asking some questions or for documentation, so perhaps that explains it wasn't legal ordinarily.
That conclusion is not drawn by the sources used and it would feel a bit synthy; one says there were anti-air clauses, the other that they used aerial methods after. It's possible, although I would agree that it's unlikely, that anti-air actions were effective but the Nationalists and Italy were prepared for losses. I don't know, so I don't feel happy going with it. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't understand your explanation of the point about if non-French+British countries signed/participated (even formally) of the discussion in followup conference in Geneva. DemonicInfluence (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have certified the signatories were the same. Who discussed what exactly is not in any of the sources and I do not consider it of much worth; the British and French continued to the driving fore, and, subject to a few changes, everyone agreed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article at GAN a few months back, and it looks even better now. One nitpick though: You should be consistent in whether you include United Kingdom/UK after British publisher locations. Eisfbnore • talk 07:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "- called Nyon Arrangement -": Hyphens in place of en-dashes? That's a hanging offense.
  • "Naval patrols were established – the United Kingdom ...": semicolon.
  • "plans to attack aggressive submarines, which would be counter-attacked by naval vessels.": probably just: "plans to counterattack [no hyphen] aggressive submarines at sea." I think readers are going to assume naval counteroffensives.
  • "would patrol ... would patrol ... would be allowed": I'd prefer "were to patrol", "were to be allowed"; otherwise, it's hard to know whether you're describing the terms of the agreement or future events (using "would" for the future-in-past tense). - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a significant control effort was the best solution, four of which were put forward, in response..." Maybe: a significant control effort was the best solution, and four plans were put forward in response ...
  • "This would be the basis for a Mediterranean meeting": Sorry, what specifically is the basis?
  • "A conference was arranged for all parties with a Mediterranean coastline, along with Germany, by the British on 5 or 6 September.": Was the conference or the arranging on 5 or 6 Sept? If the former, then: "The British arranged a conference on 5 or 6 September for all parties with a Mediterranean coastline, along with Germany."
  • "the Republican Spain": surely no "the".
  • "against such a plan. It was held at Nyon, Switzerland ...": "It" dangles.
  • "although Geneva would have been more usual, it was avoided because it was associated in Italy with the actions of the League of Nations over the Abyssinian Crisis.": I think you can get away with: "Geneva was avoided because Italians associated it with the actions of the League of Nations over the Abyssinian Crisis." That is, if they're avoiding it, it must be because it would otherwise have been a likely venue. And if this works, then it's better, per the copyediting version of the totalitarian principle.
  • That's all for now; I got down about halfway, to Provisions. If you have (or anyone has) a chance to correct these, skim the rest, and fix any similar problems, please mention that here, and I'll have another look. - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, think I've addressed these. I changed "The British arranged a conference on 5 or 6 September" to "The British arranged a conference for 5 or 6 September" since I wanted to remove the ambuity you identified in the original version, even if having two "for"s is not optimal (only two, after all). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. - Dank (push to talk) 10:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, your edits all check out.
  • Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer; I got down about halfway, to Provisions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 10 September 2011 (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/Nyon_Conference&oldid=1141873515"