Talk:Twelfth siege of Gibraltar

Twelfth siege of Gibraltar has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 16, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar ended in defeat for France and Spain, which lost 10,000 men while the English and Dutch defenders lost only 400?

British Overseas Territories

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gibraltar Mid‑importance

	Gibraltar portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

GibraltarpediA Mid‑importance

	This article is part of GibraltarpediA.GibraltarpediAWikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediATemplate:WikiProject GibraltarpediAGibraltarpediA-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Spanish

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force

Role of Charles' Spanish partisans.[edit]

I'm concerned because the role played by the Spanish followers of Archduke Charles in the siege is nearly ignored. Two contemporaneous writers, Narcís Feliu de la Penya and Francesc de Castellví i Obando, recorded that the troops which did most to repel the Bourbonic assault were not English, but the Spanish companies of Francisco de Sandoval (in fact, Prince George's bodyguard company) and Jaume Burguy (of Catalan miquelets) 1 2. --Weymar Horren (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Referencing criteria met
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article history indicates stability
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass, all criteria met

Image review:

Monamy-Battle-of-Malaga.jpg and Decorative scenes of the War of the Spanish Succession - Gibraltar, 1705.jpg have no United states PD licencse tags - please add as appropriate.

Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of information in Susarte ingles.jpg?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:

"Philip V", "Prince George" etc should be wikilinked at the 1st instance of the name following the lead. Likewise the 1st instance should include their full names per WP:SURNAME. I am aware that they are all mentioned in the lede, but the lede, tables and similar are exempt from SURNAME and OVERLINK policies as the lede is just a summary (per WP:LEAD) - the lede should function as a useful text without the remainder of the article and vice versa.

OK, fair enough - done. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are duplicate links to Mountjoy's Grenadiers. Remove redundant ones per WP:OVERLINK.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review:

Both "Habsburg" and "Hapsburg" spellings occur in the article. Only one should be used consistently.

Good point, I've fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The structure produced using the {{lang-es}} template seems awkward, especially since it contains a colon: ... known as Spanish: Muralla de San Bernardo (later Grand Battery). How about "... known as Muralla de San Bernardo in Spanish, and later as Grand Battery." or something along those lines?

Looks like someone else added that, I certainly don't recall doing so. I've reworded it. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the term curtain wall is used incorrectly. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect a different expression is needed instead in both of the instances of the "curtain wall".--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Grand Battery, it does seem to have been described as a curtain wall. You can see from this 1859 map I photographed last weekend that it's referred to as the "Grand Curtain" (apparently an interchangeable name). (Note that the linked Grand Battery article is very incomplete. I intend to rectify that this weekend.) Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I stand corrected, I guess.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources available on Fox's first name?

It was Edward - I've added this. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In The situation was precarious and was only worsened when a storm on 4–5 December damaged many of Leake's ships. the temporal clause should probably be moved to the end of the sentence.

Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a very nice article, with very little to mend in terms of GAR. Great work.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]