Talk:Battle of Tory Island

Good Article review

This is a very well written and informative article. I just have an issue with a couple of citations before I pass the the Good Article nomination.

• The first paragraph in the Background section is sourced to page 25 of Pakenham's The Year of Liberty. However, that page does not have the information cited. As far as I know (my knowledge is very limited!), the information in this paragraph is correct, but it needs a different citation.

Pakenham says that Ireland was "only half digested - part colony, part nation, a source of more weakness than wealth for church and crown and a prey to each sucessive enemy of Britain" Further down the page he says that Ireland was "still predominantly Catholic, still poor and still burning with hatred for her English oppressors". I think these do source the inline citations in the article, but I will looking for more sources on this. Unfortunately my main area of knowledge is naval history, not political and I don't seem to have anything else to hand. I will keep looking however.

• In the Invasion attempts section, the sentence The expedition was a total disaster for the French fleet, with 13 ships lost and over 2,000 men drowned. is sourced to page 19 of Pakenham's The Year of Liberty (the last page of the prologue). However, that page does not include the numbers of ships or men lost. Can you use a different source here?

I will put the GA nomination on hold for seven days so you can address these issues. Please let me know if I can clarify anything. Bláthnaid 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I can and have provided another source here.

Thankyou for your review, let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions for additional sources for the first paragraph. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a source on Google Books that together with Pakenham's book might be enough to source the first paragraph: The British Armed Nation, 1793-1815 by J.E. Cookson, page 52-54 [1] Bláthnaid 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That works admirably, thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll pass the GA nomination. Congratulations! Bláthnaid 14:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Copyedit

Okay, sleeves up and let's get to it ;) Comments/questions etc below as usual. EyeSerene^talk 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Background

• Can we use 'her' to refer to Britain? Not sure what current practice is here.

Neither am I, I'll have a look.

Sorry, where does it say that? I tend not to use the term myself, but it might have sneaked in accidentally. I'd prefer to change it if possible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't ;) I caught myself typing it a couple of times though... EyeSerene^talk 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would help to state what the French Revolutionary principles were, since Tone was fighting for them.

I think liberte, fraternite, egalite (or liberty, brotherhood & equality), but the phrase was used following Pakenham who focuses on the liberty aspect of the principles.

I thought so - I think the text may be ok as it stands then. EyeSerene^talk 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have a date (even a rough one) for when the group was formed?

1791

Thanks! EyeSerene^talk

Countess's pursuit

• I assume this was a British convoy that Bompart (nearly) ran into?

yes

Some replies made, await further questions.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tory Island

• I've used {{convert}} for the distances, but thought I ought to check whether they are in nautical miles or not?

Yes they are.

OK thanks. I'll change them to nmi (I assume it's the international standard nautical mile - 1852 metres)EyeSerene^talk 17:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Melampus and Résolue

• This reads as though Melampus spent the entire day of the 13th searching the bay, and only ran across the French at midnight. Is this correct?

Hmmm, according to the sources yes (it is a big bay and visibility was very low becauase of the heavy weather).

Aftermath

• "Savary's return to port marked the end of the last attempt by a continental nation to land troops in Ireland." Is this accurate - I thought the Germans tried it recently?

The Germans landed a handful of spies in Ireland in World Wars One and Two, and they may have been a rough "plan" to conduct a full invasion in either war, but there were certainly no invasion attempts by the Germans in either conflict. --Jackyd101 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No I suppose not, when you put it like that ;) Fair enough! EyeSerene^talk 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Legrand or Legrande?

Both spellings are used at Battle of Tory Island#Fisgard and Immortalité. I suppose we should be consistent, even if the notion of official spelling didn't really apply at the time. Art LaPella (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Page

Thanks to everyon who contributed sensibly and reverted vandalism during this article's time on the main page. Your efforts were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxflags

Tan Khaerr, while MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS is permissive of flagicons in military conflict infoboxes, it is with the cavaet that they serve a useful purpose and for context, the general guidance is not to use flags. In conflicts, flags can be useful where there is more than one belligerent on at least one side and they serve as a key (shorthand) for the different belligerents in different parts of the infobox. However, when not all of the belligerents have flags, their utility as a key is moot and other devices serve the same function of differentiation. You have reverted the removal of flag icons here and in some other articles where they serve no useful purpose and their presence is contrary to the cited guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157 MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS does not indicate this at all. It is however clearly indicated that flag images can still be used without restrictions in military infoboxes : Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include: Summarizing military conflicts. Their use is only discouraged for other infoboxes. Tan Khaerr (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Tan Khaerr, please read the guidance given in that section in full. Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text ... Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include: Summarizing military conflicts ... [emphasis added]. A flag conveys no additional information over the name of the belligerent. In short, flags must serve some other [useful] purpose otherwise, they are just MOS:FLAGCRUFT. The guidance does not support the use of flags in the instances you have reverted. I would suggest that you self-revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157 Yes, but this concerns other infoboxes. It is indicated that military infoboxes are an exception. Tan Khaerr (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Tan Khaerr, one must read the guidance in full and not focus on one point in isolation. Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include: Summarizing military conflicts when they convey information in addition to the text. This is the caveat. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157 No, you are interpreting the rules. It is absurd and useless to remove flags in some infoboxes and keep them in others. Tan Khaerr (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Tan Khaerr, if reading the rules and understanding them is interpreting them, then that is what I am doing. It is not absurd to keep flags where they serve a useful purpose but remove them when they don't - because that is what the guidance tells us. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur entirely with Cinderella157 on all of the above. Tan Khaerr does not understand the guideline (or does and is trying to cherry-pick particular tidbits of it out of context to get their desired decorative result anyway). These flags do not convey information in addition to the text, so serve nothing but a decorative function, and should be removed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)