# Talk:Battle of Beirut (1912)

I think there may be an issue with the short footnotes used in this article:

You have cited 'Brassler' in the short footnote, but use 'Brassey' in the reference section. Which is correct?
You have cited 'Conway' in the short footnote, does this refer to the Gardiner reference?
Lastly, IMO you should probably use a system similar to the Author, Date and Page system, e.g.<ref>Clown 2010, p. 1.</ref>.
Anyway I think these first two points will need to be resolved before the article can pass GA, although the article is looking very good. Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and made these changes myself now. ChoraPete (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries, good luck with the GA. ChoraPete (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Beirut (1912)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
I fixed the dab links in the article, please check to make sure I picked the correct links.
Background, first sentence is rambling and makes it hard to find the central point. Perhaps split into two sentences and rearrange slightly?
Battle, "set the Avni-Illah alight". Perhaps "afire" would work better in this context? As it is, it sounds as if they installed lots of light bulbs... :)
I fixed these issues.XavierGreen (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I added one fact tag where I would like to see a reference, along with a hidden comment that can be tossed after the reference is provided.
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Background section, does the Brassey ref cover the whole first paragraph? I'm guessing not, because an 1800s ref can't be used to cover 1900s events, but a ref should be provided for the Italian fears and orders.
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there really no more recent refs for this subject? Only three of the 12 refs (plus one repetition) are from sources published post-1950, and one of these is of doubtful reliability (see below comment). The article is top-heavy with contemporary sources, while having very few sources from today that give a more distanced look at the facts.
I am unable to find any modern sources which go into the battle in depth, most modern sources simply state that the corvette and torpedo boat were sunk but give no details of the battle. The account from the United States Naval institue was one of the highest quality sources ive found. There are a myriad of newspaper accounts, but these are less reliable than the sources ive used.XavierGreen (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What makes Kisses from a Distance (Ellis) a reliable reference? It seems to be a family history published by a very small, unknown publishing company, yet it's being used to source information on the aftermath of a 1912 battle, with some very strong statements that need a better ref, even as a backup.
I have no reason to believe that the hulks weren't raised at some point, but the source does seem to be of a rather low quality so it and the last sentance shall be removed.XavierGreen (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
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: 

A nice little article, but I have some concerns about the quality of referencing. As such, I am placing this article on hold to allow discusssion and changes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The article looks good now, so I am passing it to GA status. As a side note, if the Ellis ref was only being used to source the sentence about the hulks being raised, then I think that is OK, and the information can be readded. I was under the impression that Ellis was being used to reference the entire paragraph, which is where I was a little wary about it! Your choice however. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that the sources are OK. But I don't agree with the first sentence of the section Background; During the Italo-Turkish War, the Italian military feared that Ottoman naval forces in the Mediterranean would stage raid on the Italian supply and troopships headed for Italian East Africa. That concern is unrealistic. Both Egypt and the Suez Canal were under British control (after 1880 s) and British Empire had decleared its neutrality in the war. Actually that was a bit Italian sided neutrality. Because Turkish officiers to Libya over Egypt were not allowed. Likewise, it was unthinkable for Turkish navy to cross British controlled canal. Such a thought was nothing but a fantasy at most. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Ottomans traversing the canal, the raids the Italians were worried about concered the turks attacking italian transports as they traveled through the mediterranian to reach east africa. Remember Italian troops had to sail through half the mediterranian in order to reach the canal, any ottoman force in the southern mediterranian was a threat to the Italian forces approaching the canal. By eliminating the Turkish force at Beirut, the Italians assumed complete naval dominance over the Ottomans in the region ensuring that their transports could reach east africa safely.XavierGreen (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)