# Talk:Algeciras campaign

Just re-read Master and Commander, spurred me to flesh out the details in this article a bit.  Only online reference I could find is kinda dodgy, anyone have anything more firm?  I'm sure the facts are right, but it would be nice to have better references.  Burtonpe 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the English fleet lost the battle. Admiral Saumarez wanted to make a battle as the battle of Aboukir, but did not consider spanish gunboats and the coastal artillery batteries that to turn the battle a disaster for the British.

Not accurate, really. The first part of the battle, which occurred in the bay itself, was indeed a defeat for the British, but as the article states in the introduction, it was a battle of two parts, and in the second the British were victorious, nullifying any particular strategic gains the French/Spanish had made by their own victory. Martocticvs 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Strange, isn't it, how every naval action where the english didn't cover themselves with glory is classified (in English source) as "the first part of a two-part battle"?--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what do the French and Spanish call that battle that the British consider to be the Battle of Algeciras Bay Part 2? Dabbler 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Their wiki don't give a particular name to the second battle (but both clearly consider it separate, as they give the franco-spanish fleet victorious for the "Battle of Algeciras" (neither use "bay")) , at least. It seems to be considered much like a submarine ambush some days after the main battle would be in World War II terms. The two different perspective on whether the actions of the Superb are part of the battle should probably be noted. I have seen some (french) sites refer to the "two-part battle" as the Algeciras Campaign (which they acknowledge as an overall english victory)--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So what we have is a historical nomenclature difference which, admittedly, quite probably depends on a POV and the final result. However, using the British nomenclature in an English Wikipedia article is not POV, that is the way the battle(s) are named in the reference materials. Dabbler 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It would, I think, be important however to note the different schools of thought in the article on whether this is one or two battle, and add a footnote to the "British victory" mention clarifying that there were two parts, and that while the British won overall, they lost the first part.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the very first sentence of the article "The Battle of Algeciras Bay was in fact two separate battles between an allied French-Spanish fleet and the British near Gibraltar in July 1801." Reading the description, of the first battle, no one would conclude that it was a British victory. So I think that the issue is already addressed. However I have added an extra bit to the lead and changed the infobox. Dabbler 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to me. --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 21:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do the "La Libre (?) 40 (Captain Proteau)" and "Le Vautour 14 (?) (Captain Kemel)" come from ? I have been unable to confirm involvement of any such ships with my bibliography... just curious. Rama 22:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The German Article was separated in two battles, so there are two Articles. Would that not also usefull for this Article too??--Wildcard81 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In British history, they are treated as two phases of the same battle whether rightly or wrongly in logic. There is no separate name for the second phase this is made clear in this article. Dabbler (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, suum cuique, it was only a idea. --Wildcard81 (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The proper name for the bay in English is the Bay of Gibraltar. Shouldn't this be corrected in the article? --Gibmetal 77talk 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, just dropping a line here that over the nexy couple of weeks I will be working on expanding and redeveloping this article. My intention is to break it into three articles First Battle of Algeciras covering the events of 6 July, Second Battle of Algeciras covering 12 July and this article will become Algeciras campaign, covering all the events from Linois's departure from Toulon to the conclusion of the aftermath of the second battle (there will also be an order of battle). The reason for the split is for no other reason than to make sure that there is enough room to comfortably include the level of detail I intend without making the whole thing too cumbersome. I started this project back in 2010, but due to an 18 month Wikihiatus I'm only picking it up again now. If anyone has any comments regarding this plan then please do drop me a line. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one look forward to this expansion and the whole campaign itself. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Its coming online now!--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Great job.. thanks!ChristiaandeWet (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome. As a general note, the history of the previous version can be found at the redirect Battle of Algeciras Bay, the talk page of which I  moved here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Algeciras campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 18:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
prose:   (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
1. were ultimately completely exonerated. Suggest - were completely exonerated
2. Accompanying the squadron were the frigates Libre and the Spanish Sabina and the French lugger Vautour. Suggest -  Accompanying the squadron were the frigates Libre, the Spanish Sabina and the French lugger Vautour.
3.  blazing wrecks in the darkness. Suggest -  blazing wrecks
4.  The both exploded. Suggest -  They both exploded
5. although Superb had lost just 15 men wounded. Suggest - whilst Superb had just 15 men wounded

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

All done, thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Passed. Good job Jacky. Thurgate (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)