Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Action of 1 August 1801


 * 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.


 * Promoted -MBK004 03:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Action of 1 August 1801

 * Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because i believe it meets the requirements of a A-class article. XavierGreen (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have copyedited this article to bring it into compliance with WikiProject Ships/Guidelines with regards to referring to ships in the possessive form as well as the use of "the" before the name of a vessel. -MBK004 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * no dab links, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
 * in the Background section please check this sentence: " Flying British colors as a ruse, the Enterprise was able to approach close to her and hail her as to her." (I'm not sure what "hail her as to her" means. Is it missing something?);
 * I fixed this, foolish mistake on my part lol.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * what's a corsair? Could it be wikilinked? Also, sometimes the Tripolitan ship is called a corsair and at other times a polacre. Is there a difference? Sorry, if this is silly question;
 * Corsair is just a generic term for a raiding vessel, i removed most of the reference to it but kept one and wikilinked it.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * in the Background section, Enterprise should be in italics in this sentence "At this the Enterprise struck the British colors, raised the American flag, and prepared for action";
 * FixedXavierGreen (talk)


 * in the Battle section, I suggest wikilinking "musket", as the layman might not know what this is;
 * Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * in the Battle section, I suggest adding the clause: "...indicating that she wished to surrender" to this sentence: "Severely damaged, Tripoli struck her colors". I know that you've wikilinked it, but if a casual reader may not want to click the link to find out what the term means as it interupts the flow of the writing;
 * I added a clause to clarify this.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * in the Battle section, the wikilink for grappling hook, which has been piped with grappling, should be removed and replaced earlier in the section when you first mention "grapple";
 * Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * there is some inconsistency in style used for the number of guns a ship has. For instance in the Background section you have "twelve gun, 135 ton schooner", then in the Aftermath section "22-gun vessel". These need to be consistent;
 * There is no inconsistency, the Tripoli's commander tried to pass off that he was defeated by a 22 gun french vessel when challenged by the USS President in order to save face and conceal the fact that his vessel really had been mauled by the USS Enterprise.15:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must not be making myself clear. The inconsistency that I'm talking about is in the style used in the article. I'm not asking for clarification about the sentence in which it appears. I'm also not saying there is a mistake in the number of guns, i.e. that the twelve and 22 refer to the same ship. I understand they refer to different ships. What I am saying is that you use words to say "twelve", then you use numerals to say "22" (as in the number of guns a ship has). Per MOS, for consistency values greater than nine should be rendered as numerals, while those less than nine should be spelt. There is some flexibility in this rule, of course, however, for the sake of consistency if you are going to use numerals for "22", you should replace "twelve" with "12" (to make it "12-gun, 135 ton schooner"). Likewise, if you would prefer to spell, then "22" should become "twenty-two" (to make it "twenty-two-gun vessel"). It is about consistency of style. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand now, i believe i have fixed what your talking about.XavierGreen (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * who is "the Dey"? They are mentioned in the Aftermath with no context. —
 * The Dey was the ruler of Tripoli, i changed this so it can be more easily understood.XavierGreen (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've struck my comments that have been dealt with, however, there is still one outstanding, per above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I've further clarified the Dey. There is also some potential for confusion with First Barbary War, which uses Pasha (which appears to be an honorific, not a position) instead of Dey; this probably needs to be clarified in First Barbary War, not here.
 * I think the confusion results from the fact that different sources use different terms, and that the title of the leader of Tripolitia changed numerous times over the course of history. I've changed it from Dey to Pasha to conform with the other articles about him. (this can always be changed back if nessesary).XavierGreen (talk)


 * I could use a brief paragraph on basic background: origin/cause of the war, beginning of the blockade.
 * I added some background information, this action was the first signifigant event during the blockade.XavierGreen (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Although the Tripolitans held a slight advantage in firepower, Enterprise had the advantage of a larger complement at the start of the action." - larger complement of what? my first interpretation was firepower, but I suspect you mean manpower; please clarify.
 * In naval terms complement almost always means manpower, but i have clarfied this in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * the lopsidedness of the action leads me to wonder about the relative experience levels of the crews; do your sources address this?
 * The key factor in the Tripolitans loss was not experience, but rather tactics. Tripolitan military doctrine was focused primarily on carrying vessels by boarding. The fact the the Tripolitans were unable to board made their expertise in those tactics useless. That combined with the American surprise attack on the vessel led to the Amerioan victory.XavierGreen (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add words explaining this to the second background paragraph -- the Americans' advantage isn't just manpower, it's also how each side chose to use it.  Magic ♪piano 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -  Magic ♪piano
 * Support.  Looks good!  Magic ♪piano 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.