The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010 [1].

Action of 1 August 1801[edit]

Action of 1 August 1801 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel it meets the criteria of a featured article. XavierGreen (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no explanation for a modern reader of whose authority Tripoli came under and how it was able to go to war independently of any other power. It only needs to be brief, but there should be some clarification of this.
Done.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked terms should be linked in both the lead and the main body of the article as they appear.
I think i fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the bribes that they paid to Tripolitan officials in exchange for peace" - it wasn't peace they were bribing them for, but uninterrupted passage of shipping (it was effectively a protection racket). Can you expand/clarify this?
I think i explained this better now.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When word of these insults to American shipping reached Washington" - not neutral, "When word of these attacks upon American shipping" is a better way of phrasing it.
The problem with changing it to attacks is the fact that not all of the insults to American shipping were attacks, American vessels were forced to ferry Tripolitan diplomats to Turkey among other depredations (improperly flying American flags on vessels) many of the things the Tripolitans did were intended to be insulting so as to bait the Americans into conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, i changed it. The most of the other things happened earlier than i thought they had.XavierGreen (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with you keeping insults provided this addition information is included and explained. Its up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and force them into accepting peace" - I think this is a) vague and b) redundant. It should either be removed or explained more clearly (what were their objectives etc.)
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British possession of Malta" - possession is not a clear term in this context (and is technically inaccurate as Malta was ruled by a Maltese National Convention with a British president, Alexander Ball). I suggest "British naval base on Malta" as a more precise term
FixedXavierGreen (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph of the "Background" section you use the word "quite" too much, try to reduce it.
FixedXavierGreen (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you finish with "another four years", and I think this type of expansion would assist the rather abrupt ending of the main body of the article.
I expanded the last sentance a bit more.XavierGreen (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is non-essential, but it would look more professional if you listed the artists and dates in the captions for the images you have used.
Done.XavierGreen (talk)

Comments regarding 1a-b-c

I think i fixed this one.XavierGreen (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please find an uninvolved editor to go over the text. I only gave one example but the first paragraph in the background section is especially bad. --Brad (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote more of the paragraph, anybetter?XavierGreen (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please find an uninvolved editor to go over the text. I only gave one example. --Brad (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have recast the first paragraph of the background to provide a slightly richer context. In doing so, I brought in details (cribbed from First Barbary War) that may not be supported by the cited source; I leave this to the nominator to check. I will pass over more of the article later. Magic♪piano 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've added an additional citation to support the changes.XavierGreen (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I elaborated the ALT text a bit more.XavierGreen (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

FixedXavierGreen (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one small additional point: capitalisation in book titles should reflect that on the book's actual cover. Thus (Boot) "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" and (Whelan) "Jefferson'a War: America's First War on Terror". Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i fixed these.XavierGreen (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've watched this evolve from a B-class article to its present state. I have two minor quibble. What does virtual independence mean? Do you mean autonomously from the Empire in its foreign relations? Second, while the writing is good, it is occasionally wordy, and you could probably tweak a few things for greater clarity. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the sentence in question has been changed to be more clear.XavierGreen (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date, source, and author should reflect information for the image, not the scan. So, for example, we need a source where this image can be found.
  • Is this an engraving of a drawing?
  • Please choose a license.
Its a drawing from the national archives, i didnt upload it but the correct details can be found on the page. Its a wikimedia commons image so idk if they have a different style of citing these things or not. But after some snooping i found it here.XavierGreen (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.archives.gov/research/military/navy-ships/sailing-ships.html[reply]
I can't quite figure out the publication date. Was this image published in 1878, as suggested by the uploaded data? How do we know that? I can't find a date of publication on the website. Is this an engraving that was published in the 1974 leaflet? Could you perhaps ask the uploader about the publication date, if you don't know it? Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the artist was really William Bainbridge Hoff, he died in 1903 [2], so it should be PD+100. However, I note that the military website listed the artist as N. Hoff - same person? Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And see January, Brendan (2009), The Aftermath of the Wars Against the Barbary Pirates, Twenty-First Century Books, p. 30 [3] for confirmation that this was an 1878 drawing (no info on original publication date) by William Bainbridge Hoff. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added that source to the image page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the image page. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date, source, and author should reflect information for the painting, not the scan. Also, be sure to include the death date of the artist, so that the PD claim is upheld. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this.

Support (conditional upon image issues being addressed) This article was clear and succinct. I know a little bit about the background for this event, although not the event itself. I thought that the article did a good job of providing context for the reader. It was engagingly written. I am unsure if there is more information available, as I haven't had time to check, but the sources used in the article appear to be reliable to me. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

I changed the lead, so this point is moot now.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead clearly states that the combatants were America and Tripoli. Tripoli was the capital of the Vilayet of Tripoli, there is nothing more than a stub on this polity but i have linked to it none the less. As the priciple combatant in the barbary wars, i dont think anyone looking at this will be confused as there were no other independent polities named tripoli at the time that the united states was at war with (there were no other independent polities named tripoli in existance at this point in history anyway).
They need to be linked in both the lead and the body via manual of style so i was told.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed some of them and kept two or three. If you read naval histories, the word upon is quite common. The word is not obsolete in american english, which is the dialect in which this article is written.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have covered the battle in its entirety, most accounts in historical texts do not even go as far as this article does.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More