Talk:Nyon Conference

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nyon Conference/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eisfbnore ^talk 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a short, but well-written and properly referenced article by User:Grandiose, whose work with the SCW I have been admiring. Will give a review swiftly. --Eisfbnore ^talk 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Please don't write prose with brackets. Also, there a few short, stubby lines in the first para of the first section, such as "Observers were posted to Spanish ports and borders" and "Controls were widely evaded", etc.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead is a bit short.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced. Could do with a bit of standardisation though; compare citations like "The English Historical Review (1975). p. 111–112." with "Thomas (1961). pp. 476–7." (note the difference in the page range)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   The following sentence is a bit WP:SYNTH: "In doing so, Britain was perhaps avoiding confrontation with the Italians, as air and surface attacks had been open, whereas submarine attacks were covert." Suggest attributing this to cited historian(s).

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The last para of the last section violates WP:EDITORIAL and WP:NOTED. Please indicate who is stating what in a neutral tone.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Could perhaps do with a picture of Chamberlain in the last section.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Placing on hold. --Eisfbnore ^talk 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, think I've done everything you've mentioned – I wasn't happy with most of the things you flagged when I wrote them. I agree with the synopsis that it's short but complete enough, as it covers a small topic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good, then everything seems to have been seen to. I'll pass the article. Another great SCW article from the House of Grandiose! --Eisfbnore ^talk 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Very hard to understand

There seems to be something "missing" in this article. I find it very hard to understand. Where are these "pirates" in submarines supposed to be from ? Colombian drug lords ? Barbary pirates ? It makes no sense.

If this is really about forces from a government ( which ? ) covertly sabotaging the maritime trade of some other government, then really, that should be clearly stated. Is that "piracy" ? Eregli bob (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added one small sentence to make it clear that the conference was called because of the Italian attacks: except the Italians said that they weren't behind the submarine attacks. The agreement just says "Pirates" which includes both your Colombian drug lord and those actually acting on behalf of Italy but pretending not to be. 08:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• "disputed by the lesser nations": less populous?
• "Proceedings took two forms: discussions between the British and French, and formal situations.": I don't know what a formal situation is. A meeting of all the parties? - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully addressed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Three minutes on your tweak, Dank? Something more important come up? ;) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Still reading :) I'm concerned the images may not be enough to make FAC reviewers wildly happy, even if you have arguments that there aren't particularly relevant images available. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The British and French knew that Italian "pirate" submarine operations had already been paused": I'm in agreement with the commenter above, I think this topic isn't clear enough. I think something like the answer you give above should be in the lead, that this was in part directed at Italy. And ... I don't think it will be clear to the general reader what "Italian "pirate" submarine operations" means; spell it out. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• An apology ... I'm asking for clarification, and then making changes to your edits, which might prompt the question ... if I knew what I wanted in the first place, why didn't I just make the edit myself? :) Actually, your responses are very helpful, so we're converging quickly on solutions. You have the two qualities copyeditors want most in a writer ... honesty and dedication to the process. Familiarity with style guidelines is really not that important. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• "perhaps surprisingly": Who was surprised or dubious? - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Only the author's (Gretton), he doesn't attribute surprise to any particular party at the time. Should I remove the clause? (Grandiose)

What does the sentence say that conveys surprise? - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The possibility of the Tyrrhenian Sea coming under Italian patrols was agreed.": Not sure what that means ... was it agreed that it would be discussed later, or were they specifically allowed to patrol by the agreement?

They were allowed to specifically, but since they weren't there, Italian agreement had not yet been secured. (Grandiose)

• "Another, on surface ships ... was eventually hardened at the request of the French, so text stating aggressors would be attacked was added.": Not sure what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had another go at formulating it. (Grandiose)

• "A Soviet proposal strengthening the agreement was made.": Not sure what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all the source says, but I feel like I understand better than the reader might, so I've tried again. I wonder if it the concept of "hardening" or "strengthening" an approach that is unclear? If so, I'll find another way. (Grandiose)

• "Delbos mentioned that similar proposals about surface craft would be prepared.": Mentioned? Like, in a footnote, or not in the agreement at all? - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "announced". (Grandiose)

• I don't understand the first paragraph of Aftermath.

Completely reorganised. Does this help? If not, could be you be more specific? (Grandiose)

• "The Nationalists made several complaints, none of which were accepted.": By whom? In what way? - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed. (Grandiose)

• "However, the Nationalists and Italians switched to using air power against shipping.": This needs a little more ... at least a date, and probably some clue as to how successful the air assaults were. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There was only one thing I found to add, but it's something. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay that all looks good, and I moved the sentences around a bit in the last section, see if that works. I just added one question above (What does the sentence say that conveys surprise?) - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer here rather than above, he says "Surprisingly, [the Soviets agreed]". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Leipzig allegedly attacked with torpedoes

This is what the German cruiser Leipzig good article mentions with a 1997 reference to Otte & Pagedas whereas this article's Context and organisation section says they actually were attacks (plural) and gives their dates using much older 1961 & 1937 sources Vctrbarbieri (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)