Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Lissa (1811)

Battle of Lissa (1811)

Hi, just passed GA with this and hoping to take it on to FAC. Would appreciate any comments from reviewers on the article, particulaly related to the prose, which can be a weakness for me. I would also appreciate the opinion of anyone with a background or interest in the subject on whether the sourcing is appropriate. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cam

My colleagues below have probably said most of it, but just one thing that I caught after a quick read-through:

• I'd prefer to see the casualty statistics in the infobox cited, just for verifiability purposes. Although you have cited them in the tables further down the article, I think it'd make slightly more sense to cite them in the infobox for the overall statistics (at least that's what I'd do)

All the best in taking the article forward. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Serviam

• In the introduction, you mention that the British fleet was made up of frigates. It might be nice to mention what the French and Venetian fleet was made up too.
• The "Backround" section is good
• I don't particularly like the "Squadrons" section. The name doesn't sound right to me, perhaps it could be renamed to "Forces" or "Fleets" or "Strength" or soemthing like that

• That whole section definitly needs more prose. You should write out what's in the table, and make the tables smaller so they fit at the side of the text, or just put them at the bottom of the text.

I disagree, I think the table is the best way to present the information in a clear fashion. Out of interest, how do you think turning the table into prose would improve it? I'd be interested in getting wider commentary on this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "Battle" section looks good, though I've only scanned through it and not read it through
• The "Aftermath" section looks good
• On a general note, I don't like the dates. They're written 15 November 1992, and I would prefer them to be written 15th November 1992

--Serviam (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't the manual of style state that we're not supposed to use "th" or "st" with dates, such as 15th November? Cla68 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

hmm...yes, it does — didn't know that, and I prefer the other way--Serviam (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the review. I've looked at the lead, but I am reluctant to change the squadrons section without wider discussion. Cla68 is correct, "th" etc. are discourgaed by MOS, and I have always been told to remove them at previous FACs. I agree that this is a bit illogical, but that is how the system works at the moment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kariteh

• This sentence needs fixing: "British numerical superiority in the area was assured, when French reinforcements departed on 25 March from Toulon they were hunted down and driven back to France by Captain Robert Otway in HMS Ajax before they had even passed Corsica."

Not sure what is wrong here. I'll try swapping the comma for a semi-colon. Is that better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It was a bit confusing with the comma. Kariteh (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Lessina be spelt Lesina?

Yes, it was an archaic spelling in one of my sources. Changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kariteh (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy

• This sentence has a misplaced modifier: "...the larger Franco-Venetian forces under Commodore Bernard Dubourdieu unable to bring the British under William Hoste to a concerted action at which their superior numbers might prove decisive." It reads as if the British had superior numbers, not the Frence. It's also somewhat redundant to a line in the paragraph below about Dubourdieu's plan to use French superiority in numbers to destroy the British

Did you change this? It reads differently now which I think addresses the problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else must've, because I did not. The sentence now reads "...concerted action at which Dubourdieu's superior numbers might prove decisive.", which is quite correct. Good work to whoever fixed it! Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that, and the above comments, the prose is pretty good, and reads well. All in all, good work.

Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang

Based on this version, I make the following comments and suggestions:

• "The engagement was fought in the Adriatic Sea and contested possession of the strategically important island of Lissa," -> "The engagement was fought in the Adriatic Sea for possession of the strategically important island of Lissa,"
• "The French needed to control the Adriatic to allow them to supply a growing army ..." -> "The French needed to control the Adriatic to supply a growing army ..."
• Why does the lead state 4 British frigates, but the infobox states 3 with an accompanying 22-gun ship?
• "The French invasion force under Bernard Dubourdieu was met by Captain William Hoste and his four frigates based on the island and in the following battle Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron." -> "Four British frigates under the command of Captain William Hoste met Bernard Dubourdieu's French invasion force. In the ensuing battle, Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron."
• "At Tilsit", should it not be "In the Treaty"?
• "a campaign of raid and counter raid" -> "a campaign of raids and counter raids"?
• On that note, "By 1810 the British and French frigate squadrons were engaged in a campaign of raid and counter raid, with the larger Franco-Venetian forces under Commodore Bernard Dubourdieu unable to bring the British under William Hoste into a concerted action in which Dubourdieu's superior numbers might prove decisive." -> "Commodore Bernard Dubourdieu's Franco-Venetian forces were unable to bring the smaller British force under William Hoste into a concerted action in which Dubourdieu's superior numbers might prove decisive. Instead, the opposing forces were locked in a campaign of raids and counter raids up to 1810."
• Like Serviam, I am concerned over the table on Squadrons. However, my concern is that this table is overly detailed for Wikipedia. I am quite certain that the general reader has no interest in knowing the exact losses in each ship. Imagine if such a table was done for larger battles...

Such tables are: See Order of Battle at the Glorious First of June. I think this table will be of significant interest to many readers, particularly those with a strong interest in Napoleonic naval history. For now I'd like to keep it in.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I love the Battle section (this is the sort of stuff and style I love to read), but some explanations needed for general readers (and me!), e.g. "triple-shotted", "ordered his ships to wear", "a punt"
• "Several of the French ships were then at an angle at which they could bring their guns to bear on Cerberus," -> "Several of the French ships came at an angle at which they could bring their guns to bear on Cerberus,"
• "the battered Favorite leading the way by attempting to round Amphion and rake her before catching her in crossfire as had been Dubourdieu's original intention." -> "the battered Favorite leading the way in an attempt to round Amphion and rake her before catching her in crossfire as had been Dubourdieu's original intention."
• "the leading French ships Flore and Bellona only succeeding in reaching the rearmost British ship, Amphion. Amphion however found herself caught between the two frigates": The "however" is incorrectly used and not needed.
• "To the rear, Amphion, despite being outnumbered, succeeded in closing with and raking Flore, causing such damage that within five minutes, with Captain Péridier seriously wounded, she surrendered, her officers throwing the French colours overboard." It is a bit confusing in who the "she" is referring in the last part of the sentence (Amphion or Flore, imagine you are still not familiar with the force disposition at this stage). I suggest "To the rear, Amphion, despite being outnumbered, succeeded in closing with and raking Flore, causing such damage that within five minutes, with Captain Péridier seriously wounded, the officers of Flore threw the French colours overboard and surrendered."
• The same issue with "Turning her attention on Bellona, Amphion also forced her surrender in an engagement that lasted until 12:00." -> "Turning her attention on Bellona, Amphion also forced the ship's surrender in an engagement that lasted until 12:00."
• "despite having already surrendered." -> "despite their surrender."
• "Franco-Italian"? I think it is "Franco-Venetian"?
• "despite no British officer being on board." -> "despite the absence of a British officer on board."
• "she too headed for safety", the "too" is redundant here
• "Two British midshipmen left in command of the town organised the British and indigenous population into a defensive force and successfully intimidated Gifflenga and his 200 men into surrendering rather than pressing their attack. The junior British officers informed Gifflenga that the return of the British squadron would bring overwhelming numbers of sailors, marines and naval artillery to bear on his small force and that if he surrendered immediately he could expect better terms. Gifflenga recognised that his position was untenable and capitulated." Is it a wrong order of events, or wrong tenses used? The passage makes it seem as if the officers informed Gifflenga of the British squadron after his surrender.
• "eventually being driven off" -> "but was driven off"
• "were making strenuous efforts to" -> " were straining to"

I'm not convinced this is better, this strikes me as a more subjective issue than most of the others listed here. For now I have left it as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "but not without the loss of five men killed and several more seriously burnt when the blazing mainmast collapsed." -> "but not without the deaths of five men and the heavy injuries of several more when the blazing mainmast collapsed." The "loss of x killed" seems redundant.
• "His own crew prevented him from destroying the vessel, but only because the captain was confined below by his mortal wounds." Eh, who or what exactly prevented him from doing so?
• "Duodo died minutes after the prize crew boarded, still believing that the fuse had been lit." Possibly confusing sentence. Who believed the fuse had been lit, the prize crew or Duodo?
• I also advise caution on usage of the past participle (the simple past tense would usually suffice). I have been criticized many times for their improper usage. Examples where I see possible concerns:
  • "Russia had granted France control over the Septinsular Republic"
  • "As Favorite and Amphion had closed with one another, firing had continued between the British rear and the French leeward division, led by Danaé." (I am sure they are incorrectly used here.)
  • "The smaller craft of the Franco-Venetian squadron had scattered during the battle's final stages and had all reached Lesina independently."
  • "where Captain Duodo had attempted to ignite the"
  • "Hoste was furious at the behaviour of Flore's officers and had sent a note"
  • "The British ships had suffered 190 killed or wounded in the battle"
• That is all and I thank you for the marvelous and engaging recount of the battle (which I had no knowledge of prior to this review). Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A brilliant and much appreciated review which has significantly improved the prose of the article. I have addressed all your points in the article, with two exceptions which I have discussed above. Thankyou very much--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

This was quite an interesting read and looks to be a good candidate for FA. I didn't really read through the comments above, so I apologize if I repeat some comments. Anyway, here are some things that popped out at me.

The lead

• This is probably nothing, but one squadron is introduced as "French and Venetian", but referred to as "Franco-Venetian" throughout the rest of the article. Maybe introduce it as "...squadron of French and Venetian (Franco-Venetian) frigates..."
• Minor tweaking to make the sentence more balanced and less POV.
  "The battle has been hailed as an important British victory, not just because of the disparity between the forces but also from and the signal raised by Hoste, a former subordinate of Horatio Nelson."

Background

• This sentence felt a bit awkward, but I'm not certain if my suggestion retains the original meaning.
  "Thus, the Treaty of Schönbrunn formalised Napoleon's control of almost the entire coastline of the Adriatic and, if unopposed, would allow him to use it to transport troops and supplies to the Balkans."
• I think adding "British" would help distinguish the "Royal Navy" for a reader unfamiliar with the subject.
  "To disrupt the preparations of this army, the British Royal Navy, who had..."
• Is "vainly" needed here? It seems a bit POV. But if the source described it as such, I guess it's no big deal.
  "...Dubourdieu landed 700 Italian soldiers on Lissa while Hoste sailed vainly in the Southern Adriatic in search..."

Should have read "in vain". Corrected--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Squadrons

• I believe flags are generally discouraged. However, adding text of the country of origin along with the flag makes it acceptable. I'm sure if you add such info in the "Key" section it should be fine. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) for more info.

I've not heard of flags being discouraged in naval orders of battle before, and I've taken two through FLC. The identities of the nation's the flags represent are in the infobox, are you suggesting that they be also shown in the key?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of just flags without an text is discouraged. But that doesn't matter as I missed them in the infobox. However, I still think adding them to the key wouldn't hurt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Battle

• Minor tweaks.
  "By 06:00, Dubourdieu was approaching the British line from the north-east in two divisions, leading in Favorite at the head of the windward or(western) division."
• This sentences seem a bit long and difficult to read. Maybe try this:
  "As he closed with Hoste's force, Dubourdieu realiszed that due to his enemy's speed he would be unable to successfully cross Active's bow, due to his enemy's speed, and would also be unablebreak through their line, due to the close proximity of the British ships to one another, to break through their line."

Per "realized", British English not American should be used throughout this article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another alternative is:
  "As he closed with Hoste's force, Dubourdieu realiszed that due to his enemy's speed he would be unable to successfully cross Active's bow and break through their line, due to his enemy's speed and due to the close proximity of the British ships to one another, to break through their linerespectively.
• Minor trimming.
  "He instead therefore sought to attack the second ship..."
• I think an emdash would work better here.
  "Dubourdieu possessed not only a significant advantage in ships but also in men,—the Italian soldiers aboard giving him..."
• Missing comma.
  "...fire to attack the leading French ships, Favorite and Danaé, unopposed for several minutes."
• The second "of" is not needed; the "and" distributes the first one to both parts of the sentence.
  "Hoste was aware of Dubourdieu's intentions and of the French advantage in numbers..."
• I think an emdash or semicolon would work better here instead of a comma. Take your pick.
  "Among the dozens killed and wounded were Dubourdieu and all the frigate's officers,—leaving Colonel Gifflenga in command of Favorite."
• Minor trimming.
  "Several of the French ships the came at an angle at which they could bring..."

Removed "the", but without "at" that sentence doesn't make sense.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant to strike out "at which" instead of just "at". Either way, your call. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Hoste's manoeuvre

• Some tweaking (active voice versus passive voice) and I think this sentence might work better as two.
  "Following the death of Dubordieu, the order was given by Captain Péridier on Flore orderedfor the French and Venetian ships to attack the British line directly, t The battered Favorite leading the way in an attempt to round Amphion and rake her before catching her in crossfire as had been Dubourdieu's original intention."
• Missing commas.
  "Hoste, however, was prepared for this eventuality and immediately ordered..."
• Minor tweak, just sounds better to me.
  "...opponents, the leading French ships Flore and Bellona only succeedinged only in reaching the rearmost British ship, Amphion."
• Minor trimming
  "...carronades and left the ship much weakened, with only a single gun with which to engage the enemy."

This revised sentence doesn't read correctly to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have time for now, I'll try to finish up the review later. I hope this helps some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Copyedited the article based on the partial review above. I didn't agree with all your suggestions; some I didn't change at all, others I changed but in a slightly different way than suggested, others following your advice. I left some comments above regarding certain points, but the review was much appreciated. Look forward to the second half. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments:

Chase

• I know ships are often referred to as "her", but I think removing such terminology would be more encyclopedic. The sentence still sounds a bit off this way, so some more tweaking might be in order.
  "...Cerberus took heavy damage but inflicted similar injuries on her opponentto Corona."

The is a guideline somewhere about this, but female pronouns are considered acceptable when referring to ships on Wikipedia. In this instance however the use of "her" is confusing and I will change it.

• I think "fight", "battle", or something else might sound better here, but that's just me. Also, a conjunction would help the readability of the sentence.
  "This engagementexchange continued until the arrival of Active, which had been strenuously attempting to reach the combat at the front of the British line, and caused the Danaé, Corona and Carolina to sheer off and retreat to the east."
• This sentence was rather long and hard to follow; breaking it up might help. Also, I don't understand what Captian Peridier being injured has to do with surrendering. Could this part be better clarified?
  "To the rear, Amphion,—despite being outnumbered,—succeeded in closing with and raking Flore,. The Ampion causinged such damage that within five minutes, with Captain Péridier seriously wounded, Flore's officers threw the French colours overboard in surrender."
• Trimming for conciseness and another instance of "her".
  "Turning her attention on Bellona, Amphion alsothen forced the Italian ship'sBellona to surrender in an engagement that lasted until 12:00."
• "Also" is not necessary here.
  "...the small ships Mercure and Principessa Augusta also fired on Amphion until the frigate was able to..."
• A semicolon is appropriate here.
  "...around one another for the next hour,; captains Gordon and Paschaligo each seeking..."
• Tweaking and punctuation.
  "At 13:45, the frigates closed with one another and engaged in combat. 45 minutes laterThe Corona surrendered, forty-five minutes later after having taken severe damage in the engagement."
• Minor trimming; "as" makes the sentence sound weird to me.
  "...while Flore had indicated to each British ship as she passed that she had surrendered and was in British possession..."
• Missing comma, verb agreement, and another instance of "her".
  "Once Flore was clear of the British squadron, itshe headed for safety, and reachinged the batteries of Lesina shortly after her compatriotsthe Carolina and Danaé and ahead of the limping British pursuit."
• I'm not sure what was meant with this sentence. the subject is singular (smaller craft), but the last part sounds like refers to a plural. Should it be "crafts"? "The smaller craft of the Franco-Venetian squadron scattered during the battle's final stages and had all reached Lesina independently."

In British English at least, craft is like fish or sheep: the plural is the same as the singular. I will however try to clarify the sentence.

Sorry, for the disjointed review, but this week is not the best time for me. Please don't wait up if you're planning on taking it to FAC. Once again, you have my apologies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

No problem, thanks very much for your input. I probably will take this to FAC soon, so if you have any further comments, stick them on the talk page or raise them at FAC. Your review is much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)