Talk:Second Ostend Raid

GA review
I have taken on Second Ostend Raid for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Jackyd101. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
Apologies for the delay in posting this assessment (busy RL lately!). However, I am pleased to tell you that Second Ostend Raid can be passed in its current form as a good article under the Good article criteria. I have listed it on the Good Articles page under History > War and military > Conflicts, battles and military exercises and updated any templates on this talk page. For the record, the following editors have been identified from the article history as contributing significantly: Jackyd101.

Congratulations, and well done! EyeSerene TALK 10:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page request
Just to let everyone know, I requested this article for the main page on November 11 here. It doesn't have to be this one, but I believe that we should have a WWI article on that day. -- Scorpion 0422  13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

wearing out of barrels
I noticed the comment about 'wearing out of barrels' being the only outcome of the first ostend raid. While this may well have been the case, I also recall reading that some naval guns were only good for 100 shots before the barrels had to be relined. So basically, this would be norrmal wear and tear and not very surprising, thus not a significant point to draw attention to specifically. Sandpiper (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Its what the source says and regardless of whether or not it was a regular occurence, it did happen, so I don't see any problem with including it in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources say many things, but passing on POV statements from one source is not a brilliant way to create articles. Is this going the same way as Francis Harvey, being nominated for inclusion on front page despite eccentric content? Passing on POV statements from sources does no constitute creating balanced articles.  There is a tag at the top of the page claiming it is one of the best articles created by wikipedia. Frankly, I would be ashamed to pas off any fact in an article supposedly 'one of the best articles created by the wikipedia community' if any question was raised about it and this was not addressed seriously. Referencing is utterly useless if discretion and judgement are not used to compare alternative sources of information. It might be good enough just to quote a source for a run of the mill average article, but that is not the case here. It is being claimed that this is one of the best articles we are capable of creating. Sandpiper (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you have a problem with here: vague references to another article aside, what are you saying? Are you suggesting that the barrels were not worn out? Do you have a source to that effect? Do you have a source (and if you do I'd be obliged if you could quote it here) that says that the wearing out of barrels was such a regular occurence that it need not be remarked upon? Its not a case of me "passing something off" or ignoring your comments, its just that at the moment I cannot see any reason to make changes to this aspect of the article from what you have provided: The attack was a failure and its only consequence as reported by the sources was that the barrels of the monitors were worn out. Whether or not this was a regular occurence doesn't seem very relevant (and you also do not seem to know whether the these particular guns were prone to wearing out, obviously some were not as vulnerable given that some WWI vintage guns were fitted to WWII ships in 1939 during the rush to rearm).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, guns were not totally worn out but had to be re-lined in some sort of dockyard process. So the gun would continue in service after maintenance and was not worn out in the sense of having to be thrown away. I would also guess that it was not worn out in the sense of being unable to fire, just that its ballistic properties would deteriorate and it would become inaccurate. Gunners kept count of the number of shots fired so as to allow for this.  I seem to recall that the admiralty kept stocks of barrels which would be rotated into different ships from time to time. I was shocked the first time I saw a reference to guns being 'worn out' after only 100 shots. This seemed ridiulously small, but becomes more understandable once I discovered it was as a regular maintenance cycle. Simply stating the guns were worn out after a raid suggests something cataclysmic had happened, which I would suspect was the intent of the person who originally wrote the comment appearing in the source. It sounds like something intended to disparage the raid. As such it is necessary to look into the matter and see what others have to say who might have a different POV. A balance of views is required in articles. Might as well mention that the ships had to be refuelled when they got home, but because readers would not be familiar with this design feature of naval guns it is liable to be misinterpreted. A quick look at naval gun articles here does not throw up information about this. I previously had to hunt for this info elsewhere. Sandpiper (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think its that confusing and I don't think it suggests something cataclysmic (futile maybe). However if you feel that strongly about it then I suggest you add a sentance to the section explaining that this was part of a regular maintainence cycle and source it. Make sure when you do that the source clearly indicates that these guns were of the kind that needed regular replacement / maintanence (As I mentioned, I'd be obliged if you'd quote it here).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I come back to my initial position, that this is currently a FA. That means it is as good as we can make it. I noticed a discrepancy and noted it here. I don't have the facts to hand to confirm the point. Your response seemes to imply a view that since a source had said it was so, you dismiss the matter. I don't expect you or anyone else to leap into action on my observation, but when someone points out a possible problem it is not acceptable simply to dismiss it as 'sourced'. Do you think a real paid encyclopedia would simply dismiss a potential error someone had pointed out, however good the original source seemed to be? It is only a minor point in the article as a whole, but it sounds like we are reproducing some authors sarcastic dismissal of the raid. Wiki doesn't do sarcasm.Sandpiper (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having had a read of the section in question, I can't really see a problem; if that's what the source states, then thats fine, and it's not exactly a controversial point; it doesn't seem sarcastic, either, simply stating that it only achieved quite a minor thing. Considering how long ago this was passed as FA< btw, it's in quite good shape. Skinny87 (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind another view here, I have to agree with both Jacky and Skinny. The problem with your suggestion, Sandpiper, is not its accuracy - you are probably right in concluding that barrel-wear was nothing unusual and should not have been singled out by the source - but the synthesis its inclusion would require us to make. Per WP:OR, we are not permitted to take information from two different sources and use it to reach a conclusion that's not in either. We'd need a source that states what you are arguing for in those terms - ie mentioning that although the gun-barrels were worn after the Ostend Raid, this was no big deal. EyeSerene talk 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I expect it would be possible to find a source which states that guns need relining every 200 shots or something and add that to the article. The two statements from different sources could then stand next to each other. A reader would look at them and think, 'what a peculiar thing to put into an article, two statements which contradict each other'. No real encyclopedia would do such a thing. I havn't looked at the exact wording of the relevant wiki policies lately, but there has always been a contradiction between the alleged ban on original research and the requirement for editors to use judgement in finding and selecting information from disparate sources. Wikipedi has always acknowledged the need for editorial judgement and synthesis of source material. This is self evident if you consider that material is collected from different sources and wikipedia respects the copyright of others. The normal procedure where two sources disagree is to quote both and explain they contradict (as jakyd suggests above). However, where there is a clear contradiction which indicates one of the sources has made a plain mistake, exaggeration, whatever, and that is not noteable in itself, then much better not to mention it. So I have no problem with accepting the general point being made by the source here that the raid achieved little or nothing, but his flight of hyperbole while possibly factually accurate (though I have not in fact seen details supporting or explaining this comment that the guns were worn out, it may literally be wholly false, he might simply be saying they were fired thus using up some small part of their working life as might be done in regular target practice) gives an unbalanced impression. This is an example (admittedly minor) of the kind of failing wikipedia is prone to. Failure to check facts. It is not a synthesis generating new material to recognise that a contradiction exists and exercise judgement where the real facts are clear. It would be interesting if someone could quote the original source passage so we could see in context exactly what the original author stated. My suspicion is that he simply indulged in a nice sounding turn of phrase, which we have simply copied. Although short quotations are allowed under copyright law, this would certainly be veering towards a breech of copyright rules, at least in spirit. (I mean, the classic way map makers prove copyright in their works is to add a deliberate mistake and then see how many other companies reproduce it).Sandpiper (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a rather pointless discussion. Messimer was talking out of his backside, as the section in question hopefully now reflects.  The four monitors fired 14 rounds between them at Ostend in 1915.  The only problem any monitor had was the hydraulic pump breaking in Sir John Moore.  This was only the second bombardment carried out by British monitors in the North Sea, the first being at Zeebrugge on 23 August.  Sir John Moore was the only monitor present at both Zeebrugge and Ostend, and had only fired nine rounds previously in action (Buxton, p. 48).  Barrel wear only became a problem later on (when dozens of rounds were being fired during a day) and was in no way related to the bombardment of Ostend. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for that correction. I just wanted to ask whether Buxton and Buston are the same author? The inline reference and the source have different names?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - it's Buxton (will correct it pronto). Buston is my cack-handed spelling at work. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

malcolm Mecer
I notice this article starts out as a redirect to malcolm mercer. You (jackyd101) seem to be leaving a trail of articles on wiki which start with links to articles you created personally. I'm not sure what process you are following to create these articles but perhaps you could revise it so this doesn't happen? Sandpiper (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me explain: I create articles in a number of sandboxes that I have operated now for well over two years. These boxes allow me to work on an article in the "privacy" of my userspace until such time as I feel they are ready for public consumption. This allows me to experiment with formatting, prose, referencing and links for as long as I like before the article is ready to go into the mainspace, but means that copyeditors and contributors can assist easily if they request / are invited to do so. If you look at my userspace, you will see these Sandboxes and Workboxes lined up at the top of the first section, several with articles currently under construction in them. As part of my userspace, anyone is welcome to look at them, but I'd prefer if they asked me before editing them. When I feel the article is ready, I move the article to its correct title and (not always immediately), begin a new article in the old workbox redirect. In addition to the convenience of this system, it allows me to keep track of my articles through the workbox move logs, which is helpful as my watchlist is full of articles for review and can be hard to keep track of at times. One minor side effect is that the first "edit" on an article is actually the previous move performed to the page: since the first few (dozen) edits to the page are minor stages of article construction this doesn't make a lot of difference to the earliest edits and isn't a problem for the eventual article. If there is a way the prevent this being the first edit while keeping the workbox system intact, I haven't found it yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is perfectly normal editing practice, and the links are necessary for copyright reasons as we need to be able to track the article edit history. This is why we use moves and not copy/paste to shift pages around. EyeSerene talk 08:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Jackyd created the original article in his sandbox, there is no copyright problem with him simply copying and pasting the entire thing to a brand new article under the appropriate name. There is no copyright tracking issue with re-posting your own material. My original concern was that this process seems to create an 'ownership' chain in the article history to other articles by the same author, which does not seem appropriate in a collaborative venture. Sandpiper (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way does this make an "ownership" claim? I really don't understand the complaint here - this is just a minor sideeffect of creating an article in a userbox and has no effect on the article itself whatsoever.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather ridiculous comparison
"Whilst Antwerp was a deep water port vulnerable to British attack from the sea, Bruges, sitting 6 mi (5.2 nmi; 9.7 km) inland, was comparatively safe from naval bombardment or coastal raids. "

This statement seems quite non-sensical. Antwerp isn't on the sea. It is four times as far from the sea as what Bruges it. Eregli bob (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)