This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Cartagena de Indias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Battle of Cartagena de Indias 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While some Spanish sources state 6 British ships of the line sunk or burnt, it cannot be confirmed through english language sources. Examining Beatson's list of losses shows no SoL sunk. Other Spanish sources give: "6 navíos de tres puentes. 13 navíos de dos puentes. 4 fragatas. 27 transportes." a total of fifty with 6 three deckers and 13 two-deckers, or 19 ships of the line and 4 frigates and 27 transports - it does not say they were all sunk. The number, 19, on the SoLs correspond to other sources for damaged and disabled ships- the HMS Tilbury which burns later in 1742 shouldn't be included in these losses. Also I think the statement 6 ships sunk which is sourced to a web site should be deleted even though its kind of sourced pending a clearer, confirming source. Tttom1 ( talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Where is the part of STRENGTH with the number of forces (spaniards 3000, english 27000-32000), like in other battle articles of wikipedia? Is a mistake or rather an embarrasing data for the author of this article (I suppose english)?
Ok. Thanks for the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.13.0 ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Criteria:
In general, a well researched article on which a lot of effort has gone. Most of the changes required are cosmetic, but the number of them make them important to fix. I've listed them below.
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
The text needs a little work in places. I've captured most of the ones I spotted below:
Background:
Battle:
Aftermath:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Lead:
2.Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
There's a good range of sources cited, but there's some considerable work to be done on tidying up the bibliography and citations:
Sources:
In the references and bibliography:
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
(c) it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I think that an "Order of Battle", like this: Order of Battle at the Battle of the Nile would be helpful in the article. Should you wish, I would happily make one up if you could provide me with a good source as a guide. Thanks, Corneredmouse ( talk) 13:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll re-review over the weekend. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I originally reviewed this article back in March. Since then, the various issues identified have been dealt with (retrospectively added on by Ttom1 to the original review page, so I won't repeat them here). I'm happy to pass it now second around. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I congratulate the author. You have done a good research work. However, there are some points that should be taken in consideration given the GA condition of the page, some aspects little accurate that must be revised. The most important of them is the role of Blas de Lezo in the defense of the city. According to a modern Spanish source (1), Lezo (and the battle in general) had been greately mystified by the Spanish nineteenth naval history. This book signals some interesting poits regarding to the development of the battle.
Firstly, it' said that there was a deep enmity between Lezo the viceroy Eslava attributable to the arrogant character of Admiral, and that Lezo's defensive plan consisted of abandoning the outer defenses and of sinking all the ships at the mouth of the bay while a second plan, designed by a Swiss-born military engineer, Carlos Des Naux (Eslava's second in command), consisted of defending each fort to wear down the British. The authors state that Eslava agreed with Des Naux, and the second plan was executed. The major point which I want to discuss is Lezo's performance in the engagement. It appears, as is said by Marchena and Kuethe, that the key man, the true leader, was Carlos Des Naux, who commanded the defense of Bocachica and San Felipe castles, while Lezo's actions proved highly controversial, from sinking his whole squadron without fire a single shot, to the limited support that he provided to Des Naux. In any case, he was never present at the frontline. Surprisingly, Des Naux isn't mentioned even once in the body of the article .
Other point to discuss were two of the sources used for the article. There is a PDF, Don Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta un Ejemplo Del Espíritu Militar Español, coming from an Argentine patriotic website, and a book, El día que España derrotó a Inglaterra : de cómo Blas de Lezo, tuerto, manco y cojo, venció en Cartagena de Indias a la otra "Armada Invencible", which is a novel rather than a serious essay. Not reliable sources, If I'm not mistaken. Moreover, the casualties of the battle seems to have been exaggerated. At Robert Beatson Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783 (2) is noted that no warship of the expeditionary force was lost during the engagement. And, according to Spanish sources, the number was but 6 ships (no name or class is given). The number of deaths appears also a bit exaggerated. A Spanish modern source (3) states that Eslava, in concordance with British medical accounts, put the British casualties in 4.000 deaths. 9,500 or 10.000 men may be a possible number for the overall losses of the British campaign. As for the Spanish losses, besides Lezo's squadron, 12 other vessels were scuttled in vain, according to Keuthe and Marchena.
There's also a taxative sentence in the latter book that should be noted in the article: "The loss of Cartagena to the British would have been more economically affordable than its defense".-- Sir Ignel ( talk) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Minor housekeeping thought, but I think the article tries to pack in a few too many images toward the end. Have you considered just making a "Gallery" section ( WP:Gallery) and throwing the images there? (A little weird for a battle article rather than art article, but not unprecedented.) Alternatively, maybe combine the two British medal images into one composite image, and remove the picture of Philip V (who isn't directly referenced in the text)? (Only problem with this is having an epicly long caption for describing the two medals...) SnowFire ( talk) 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This article needs a thorough overhaul as it reads like a hapless piece of propaganda. It quotes novels as sources and its tone is evidently bombastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanningar ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Cartagena de Indias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"The battle pitted a British invasion force of 124 ships[50] including: 29 ships of the line,[51][52] 22 frigates, 2 hospital ships, various fire ships and bomb ships armed with a total of some 2,000 cannon, 80 troop transports and 50 merchant ships. "
29+22+2+80+50=183 not 124
so which one is it? 124 or 183? or something else, since the "some" 80 and 50 may be approximates?
88.168.175.234 ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Wondering why AnomieBOT changed the format from dmy to mdy. I added the dmy template simply because the Infobox date was already in dmy format. ?? Carlotm ( talk) 23:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Under Spanish Leaders, Jose Campuzano Polanco is the correct name.
Under British Strength, the British had 9,700 soldiers and marines. The navy ships had complements of close to 17,000 men but the army provided about 3,000 men to fill vacancies among the crews. The British fleet consisted of 29 ships of the line (two more would follow later), 12 frigates, 7 fireships, 2 bomb ketches and 2 hospital ships. About 120 transport ships sailed with Vernon.
Under Spanish strength, the Cartagena garrison and regular regiments mustered less than 2,000 soldiers. They were augmented by another 2,200 sailors from the 6 galleons in Blas de Lezo's fleet.
Under British losses, the numbers quoted are based on the entire campaign in the West Indies. Many of the deaths occurred in Cuba and later. British fatalities at Cartagena and immediately following while the army recovered in Jamaica amount to 3,400, according to muster records. Losses among the navy crews likely add another 2,500 deaths during the Cartagena portion of the campaign. NCHist ( talk) 05:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The Bibliography has two gaping omissions: Vernon, Edward. The Vernon Papers. Ed. B. McL. Ranft. Navy Records Society, 1958 and Harding, Richard. Amphibious Warfare in the Eighteenth Century: The British Expedition to the West Indies 1740-1742. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Royal Historical Society & Boydell Press, 1991. The Vernon Papers compiles most of Admiral Vernon's correspondence during the campaign. Harding's book provides the most in depth analysis of the leadership squabbles between Vernon and Wentworth. NCHist ( talk) 05:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Cartagena de Indias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Battle of Cartagena de Indias 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While some Spanish sources state 6 British ships of the line sunk or burnt, it cannot be confirmed through english language sources. Examining Beatson's list of losses shows no SoL sunk. Other Spanish sources give: "6 navíos de tres puentes. 13 navíos de dos puentes. 4 fragatas. 27 transportes." a total of fifty with 6 three deckers and 13 two-deckers, or 19 ships of the line and 4 frigates and 27 transports - it does not say they were all sunk. The number, 19, on the SoLs correspond to other sources for damaged and disabled ships- the HMS Tilbury which burns later in 1742 shouldn't be included in these losses. Also I think the statement 6 ships sunk which is sourced to a web site should be deleted even though its kind of sourced pending a clearer, confirming source. Tttom1 ( talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Where is the part of STRENGTH with the number of forces (spaniards 3000, english 27000-32000), like in other battle articles of wikipedia? Is a mistake or rather an embarrasing data for the author of this article (I suppose english)?
Ok. Thanks for the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.13.0 ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Criteria:
In general, a well researched article on which a lot of effort has gone. Most of the changes required are cosmetic, but the number of them make them important to fix. I've listed them below.
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
The text needs a little work in places. I've captured most of the ones I spotted below:
Background:
Battle:
Aftermath:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Lead:
2.Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
There's a good range of sources cited, but there's some considerable work to be done on tidying up the bibliography and citations:
Sources:
In the references and bibliography:
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
(c) it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I think that an "Order of Battle", like this: Order of Battle at the Battle of the Nile would be helpful in the article. Should you wish, I would happily make one up if you could provide me with a good source as a guide. Thanks, Corneredmouse ( talk) 13:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll re-review over the weekend. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I originally reviewed this article back in March. Since then, the various issues identified have been dealt with (retrospectively added on by Ttom1 to the original review page, so I won't repeat them here). I'm happy to pass it now second around. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I congratulate the author. You have done a good research work. However, there are some points that should be taken in consideration given the GA condition of the page, some aspects little accurate that must be revised. The most important of them is the role of Blas de Lezo in the defense of the city. According to a modern Spanish source (1), Lezo (and the battle in general) had been greately mystified by the Spanish nineteenth naval history. This book signals some interesting poits regarding to the development of the battle.
Firstly, it' said that there was a deep enmity between Lezo the viceroy Eslava attributable to the arrogant character of Admiral, and that Lezo's defensive plan consisted of abandoning the outer defenses and of sinking all the ships at the mouth of the bay while a second plan, designed by a Swiss-born military engineer, Carlos Des Naux (Eslava's second in command), consisted of defending each fort to wear down the British. The authors state that Eslava agreed with Des Naux, and the second plan was executed. The major point which I want to discuss is Lezo's performance in the engagement. It appears, as is said by Marchena and Kuethe, that the key man, the true leader, was Carlos Des Naux, who commanded the defense of Bocachica and San Felipe castles, while Lezo's actions proved highly controversial, from sinking his whole squadron without fire a single shot, to the limited support that he provided to Des Naux. In any case, he was never present at the frontline. Surprisingly, Des Naux isn't mentioned even once in the body of the article .
Other point to discuss were two of the sources used for the article. There is a PDF, Don Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta un Ejemplo Del Espíritu Militar Español, coming from an Argentine patriotic website, and a book, El día que España derrotó a Inglaterra : de cómo Blas de Lezo, tuerto, manco y cojo, venció en Cartagena de Indias a la otra "Armada Invencible", which is a novel rather than a serious essay. Not reliable sources, If I'm not mistaken. Moreover, the casualties of the battle seems to have been exaggerated. At Robert Beatson Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783 (2) is noted that no warship of the expeditionary force was lost during the engagement. And, according to Spanish sources, the number was but 6 ships (no name or class is given). The number of deaths appears also a bit exaggerated. A Spanish modern source (3) states that Eslava, in concordance with British medical accounts, put the British casualties in 4.000 deaths. 9,500 or 10.000 men may be a possible number for the overall losses of the British campaign. As for the Spanish losses, besides Lezo's squadron, 12 other vessels were scuttled in vain, according to Keuthe and Marchena.
There's also a taxative sentence in the latter book that should be noted in the article: "The loss of Cartagena to the British would have been more economically affordable than its defense".-- Sir Ignel ( talk) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Minor housekeeping thought, but I think the article tries to pack in a few too many images toward the end. Have you considered just making a "Gallery" section ( WP:Gallery) and throwing the images there? (A little weird for a battle article rather than art article, but not unprecedented.) Alternatively, maybe combine the two British medal images into one composite image, and remove the picture of Philip V (who isn't directly referenced in the text)? (Only problem with this is having an epicly long caption for describing the two medals...) SnowFire ( talk) 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This article needs a thorough overhaul as it reads like a hapless piece of propaganda. It quotes novels as sources and its tone is evidently bombastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanningar ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Cartagena de Indias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"The battle pitted a British invasion force of 124 ships[50] including: 29 ships of the line,[51][52] 22 frigates, 2 hospital ships, various fire ships and bomb ships armed with a total of some 2,000 cannon, 80 troop transports and 50 merchant ships. "
29+22+2+80+50=183 not 124
so which one is it? 124 or 183? or something else, since the "some" 80 and 50 may be approximates?
88.168.175.234 ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Wondering why AnomieBOT changed the format from dmy to mdy. I added the dmy template simply because the Infobox date was already in dmy format. ?? Carlotm ( talk) 23:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Under Spanish Leaders, Jose Campuzano Polanco is the correct name.
Under British Strength, the British had 9,700 soldiers and marines. The navy ships had complements of close to 17,000 men but the army provided about 3,000 men to fill vacancies among the crews. The British fleet consisted of 29 ships of the line (two more would follow later), 12 frigates, 7 fireships, 2 bomb ketches and 2 hospital ships. About 120 transport ships sailed with Vernon.
Under Spanish strength, the Cartagena garrison and regular regiments mustered less than 2,000 soldiers. They were augmented by another 2,200 sailors from the 6 galleons in Blas de Lezo's fleet.
Under British losses, the numbers quoted are based on the entire campaign in the West Indies. Many of the deaths occurred in Cuba and later. British fatalities at Cartagena and immediately following while the army recovered in Jamaica amount to 3,400, according to muster records. Losses among the navy crews likely add another 2,500 deaths during the Cartagena portion of the campaign. NCHist ( talk) 05:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The Bibliography has two gaping omissions: Vernon, Edward. The Vernon Papers. Ed. B. McL. Ranft. Navy Records Society, 1958 and Harding, Richard. Amphibious Warfare in the Eighteenth Century: The British Expedition to the West Indies 1740-1742. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Royal Historical Society & Boydell Press, 1991. The Vernon Papers compiles most of Admiral Vernon's correspondence during the campaign. Harding's book provides the most in depth analysis of the leadership squabbles between Vernon and Wentworth. NCHist ( talk) 05:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)