Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Beaulieu/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2024 [1].

HMS Beaulieu edit

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Beaulieu was a Royal Navy frigate that served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. She was not a particularly well-thought of vessel, and saw much of her service away from major combat theatres. Nonetheless, in her relatively short career she managed to participate in campaigns in the West Indies, have two mutinies, fight in one major battle, and take part in a celebrated cutting out expedition. This article has gone through GA and A-class reviews and I believe it is now ready to run the gauntlet of FAC. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (image review pass) edit

I may come back and do a full review, but for now, just a couple of comments

  • I know quite a bit about ships, so terms like "fifth-rate", "full-rigged ship", "keel", "beam", "hold", "draught", "fitted out" "laid down", "ballast", "quarterdeck", "forecastle", and so on are all familiar to me, but I suspect somebody who doesn't know anything about ships would find this tough reading. All those words are linked, so somebody can click through to find more details, but see the recent thread at WT:Manual of Style/Linking#A change to NOFORCELINK for an (unresolved) discussion on how much should be explained in-line and how much to rely on click-throughs. There's a bunch of other terms like "tons burthen", "ordinary", and "cutting out" that leave even me mystified.
  • I'm currently following the precedent set by HMS Emerald (1795), HMS Bellerophon (1786), HMS Roebuck (1774), and HMS Temeraire (1798), etc, in linking but not going in to too much detail about those aspects. This is an article about one particular ship rather than the anatomy of the ship in general, so I would prefer not to intersperse the article with semi-frequent explanations for what is already linked. That said, this is not a hill I will die on if reviewers deem it necessary.
  • Comment from Ykraps - I think this will interrupt the flow excessively - 122 feet 10+5⁄8 inches (37.5 m) at the keel, the first structural element laid in ship construction which runs the length of the ship, with a beam, the widest part of the vessel, of 39 feet 6 inches (12 m) and a depth in the hold, the distance between the underside of the main deck and the top of the limber boards, of 15 feet 2+5⁄8 inches (4.6 m) - seems even more confusing to me. Commonly books/sources overcome the issue with either a glossary or footnotes. I don't mind footnotes but then isn't scrolling to the bottom of the page as disruptive as clicking on a link? --Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth-rate says a fifth rate was the second-smallest class of warships, yet you call her a A well-armed and large ship, which seems inconsistent.
  • Have removed and reworded to avoid confusion.
  • The infobox image is captioned as a "plan". In my experience, "plan" means a view looking down at something, i.e. a deck plan, so it's confusing to see that word used for this drawing.
  • Changed to "diagram" but happy to hear any other suggestions.
  • Comment from Ykraps - I think it is most commonly referred to as the sheer plan but as I imagine that to be more confusing, I tend to use profile plan which is also the term Lavery uses the most. I am not convinced that plan is a common term for plan view, except among draughtsmen, but Gardiner often uses the terms drawing or draught.--Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you're missing MOS:ALT on your images.
  • Added.
@RoySmith: Hi, thanks for having a look. I've replied above, and would be happy to further discuss your first point. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, added a cropped version.

Support Comments from Ykraps edit

lede/lead

Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to recuperate, - makes it sound like the ship herself needed to recuperate. What about, Later in the year the ship's crew was beset by yellow fever and much depleted. Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to allow them to recuperate, or similar?

  • Done.

"...boats of that squadron completed a hard-fought cutting out expedition against the French corvette La Chevrette in Camaret Bay" - I imagine most cutting out expeditions were hard fought. In what respect was this particularly so?

  • Agreed and removed.
  • Just to clarify, if the boats had come under prolonged fire or the crews were massively outnumbered, it would be fine to say so.

Design and construction

"Her draught was 9 feet 5+1⁄2 inches (2.9 m) forward" - not sure how the layman would interpret for'ad. I usually use bow and stern simply because a link is available for each but perhaps I'm over thinking here.

  • Added links.

"...allowing her to take on around double the amount of water and ballast". - Presumably this is drinking water? (taking on water puts me in mind of sinking). Consider store instead of take on. Also, not sure about 'allowing her to take on more ballast', which would have been more of a requirement.

  • Reworded.

In what respect was she a bad sailer? Presumably, with a greater depth in hold, she would have had an increased propensity to drift to leeward. Does Gardiner say anything like that?

  • He doesn't. Full quote: "No sailing quality reports on the ship survive, but it is unlikely that she was much of a sailer"
  • Shame. I suppose it would be possible to add a bit about how deep ships in general sailed but I don't think it's absolutely necessary here.

The frigate was crewed by 280 men (from 1794 this was lowered to 274) - I suspect this was due to the change in armament. Is there anything that says so or gives another explanation?

  • The Admiralty changed all frigate complements in 1794 in reaction to the creation of carronade establishments (274 for 38s, 254 for 36s, and 244 for 32s). Added.
  • Do you also have something that says carronades were lighter and therefore required fewer men to operate them?
  • I've checked all my relevant sources and can't find anything.
  • Page 17 of Henry, Chris (2004). Napoleonic Naval Armaments 1792-1815. Botley, Oxford.: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-635-5. says this. I often also add that the carronade could fire a very heavy shot but had a much shorter range than the long gun (page 13).
  • Thanks, added.

Where does the £2,200,000 figure come from and what's it based on, RPI?

  • I think a footnote explaining how the figure is calculated using the consumer price index is needed.
  • Added.

Service

"...as part of an expedition containing 6,100 troops for the capture of Martinique" insinuates to me that the expedition was to capture only Martinique. Later you say Beaulieu continued on with the expedition, arriving off the island Saint Lucia. Was the plan to always attack Martinique, Saint Lucia and Guadeloupe?

  • Yes, a wider campaign against French-held islands.

It wouldn't hurt to mention how important these islands were to France's economy and how, in capturing them, she would be deprived of the wealth generated by the sugar. Howard has a bit on this in his book.

  • Have used Brown for this as couldn't immediately find the work in Howard.
  • Brown's fine but just for your info, Death Before Glory p. 30.
  • Thanks, added a sentence.

Nore mutiny

Despite this her crew went into a state of mutiny – Shouldn’t there be a comma after 'this'?

  • Added.

Any idea what happened to Mr Redhead?

  • John Redhead was stripped of his warrant by a court martial on 4 December and sent back to the navy as a "common seaman".
  • As he is mentioned prominently in the previous paragraph, I think it would be good to mention his fate.
Had already done so, should have made clearer here.

Might be a good idea to add a Spithead and Nore mutinies main template here.

  • Done.

Camperdown

I see you have a link to the battle but I would still be inclined to add a main article template.

  • Done.

English Channel

"...she was sailing in company with the 18-gun sloop HMS Sylph" – I would use sloop of war here (and link), to differentiate between Sylph and a sloop

  • Added.

La Chevrette action

I am surprised there isn't an article for this action. Perhaps one of us will write it sometime.

Link Plymouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)

  • Plymouth in this instance refers to Plymouth Dockyard, which is already linked.

Later service

Link Portsmouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)

  • As above.


I'll take another look later --Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Thanks for the comments so far, have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all I've got but I'll pass over it one more time when I get a few minutes. --Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: That should be everything now! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another great article; comprehensive and well researched. --Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • I'm not a fan of including cost in the infobox, especially since it lengthens infoboxes without adding much value to the reader
  • Removed.
  • Add links to the guns in the infobox or tell the reader that they're smoothbores
  • Linked.
  • Link gundeck and keel in the infobox
  • Done.
  • "as a private enterprise" reads oddly to me; I'd suggest something like a speculative build or venture as an better alternative
  • Changed to speculative build.
  • island "of" Saint Lucia
  • Done.
  • "in the start of the invasion" seems awkward, perhaps something like "at the beginning" or "in the initial stages"
  • Changed to in the initial stages.
  • Delete the inflation calculators, warships are capital costs that don't use consumer price indexes that massively understate the modern costs. 2.2 million pounds might buy the boats aboard a modern frigate.
  • Done.
  • Link ranks
  • Done.
  • during "the" campaign
  • Fixed.
  • fast sailing is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen between the words
  • Fixed.
  • Was Le Marsouin a fluyt built in the Dutch manner, or was she armed en flûte because she was a transport? If unknown I'd suggest that she be referred to a transport.
  • Have gone for plain "ship" to reflect the lack of specific information in the sources provided
  • And was her name Le Marsouin or Marsouin as per the article?
  • Have removed all "Le"s from the article as it seems to be only Winfield who includes these.
  • How can Beaulieu recapture an American ship?
  • I don't know for sure, but that's definitely what the source says. My guess would be a ship captured by the French during the Quasi-War.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for your comments, have hopefully actioned everything. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. Reviewing this version, some books have ISBNs and others OCLCs. I worry a little that Glasco's PhD has only been cited thrice since 2001, might not be a very strong source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs weren't introduced until about 1972 and no effort was made to give them to books already published. OCLC numbers are considerably older and were given to all published books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Appreciate the review! As per Sturmvogel, I don't think the variation of ISBNs and OCLCs is an issue. I have removed all the Glasco that I can, replacing it with published sources. This leaves five Glasco citations which I can't find replacements for; it is in every case information to improve on existing cited events, rather than providing the basis for any of them. I believe Glasco might be kept for those five instances (he has also been published in International Labor and Working-Class History with another article about the mutiny, so he does have some credentials for the event). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this passes, with caveats for lack of spotchecks and this not being a topic where I am deeply familiar with sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "named by Adams in compliment to the local landowner": suggest "as a compliment to".
  • Done.
  • "Beaulieu was launched by Sir Harry Burrard on 4 May 1791 with the following dimensions:" I think it would read more naturally as "Beaulieu was launched by Sir Harry Burrard on 4 May 1791. It was".
  • Done.
  • The dimensions are given to the eighth of an inch, but the converted units are only to the nearest decimetre, or about three and a half inches. I wouldn't insist on a change, but just wanted to check: is this a deliberate policy?
  • I'm following the example set by previous FAs of this type, but I don't believe there's any particular policy.
  • Can we convert tons burthen? And can we inflate the cost to give the reader a sense of the modern equivalent?
  • Not sure about tons burthen. I've never come across a conversion before. Per Sturmvogel's comment about RE inflation: "Delete the inflation calculators, warships are capital costs that don't use consumer price indexes that massively understate the modern costs. 2.2 million pounds might buy the boats aboard a modern frigate."
  • "The unusual proportions of the frigate did negate her sailing qualities, however. While no official report on Beaulieu's sailing survives, the naval historian Robert Gardiner suggests that it is "unlikely she was much of a sailer"." Am I right in thinking that the first sentence is just a summary of Gardiner's opinion? If so I think this could be shortened to "While no official report on Beaulieu's sailing survives, her unusual proportions of led the naval historian Robert Gardiner to suggest that it is "unlikely she was much of a sailer"."
  • Done.
  • Seeing the "bowly" reminded me to ask: do we know if it's pronounced "Bewley", like the village, or "Boh lyoo", more or less as the French would sound?
  • "despite her being": suggest "although she was"
  • Done.
  • "Beaulieu continued on with the expedition, arriving off the island Saint Lucia on 1 April to similarly capture that place": the last few words seem redundant, and in any case this makes it sounds as if it was Beaulieu that did the capturing, rather than the whole expedition. How about "Beaulieu continued on with the expedition which arrived off Saint Lucia on 1 April, and captured it on 4 April"? I don't think we need "the island" -- it's linked and in any case we've already said we're in the Leewards.
  • Reworded.
  • Was Spartiate captured in the Leewards? If so I'd connected those sentences: "... returning to the Leeward Islands, where ..."
  • Done.
  • I'm not sure I follow the action that got Littlehales promoted. Was it deliberately grounded by the French to act as a sort of additional battery? That's what "under cover of a battery" seems to imply. Or is the point that the grounded ship was dangerous to approach because it was in range of the battery?
    • Reworded. The ship had sailed there earlier in the day to receive the protection of the battery, which clearly didn't work!
      Can we add something to that effect, then? I think it would clarify the sequence of events. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done?
  • "Under Skynner the frigate captured the French 26-gun ship Marsouin on 11 March off Guadeloupe while in consort with the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Ganges; she was bought in by the Royal Navy but never commissioned." Needs a bit of unpacking, I think. Is "in consort" a term of art or just a figure of speech here? And "bought in" needs a link if we're not going to gloss it in line; I can guess what it might mean but would prefer a link so I can be sure.
  • Reworded.

More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • I meant to comment above: if we know it's pronounced "Bewley" do we have sources that would let us say so in the lead? Nobody who hasn't been there is ever going to guess the pronunciation correctly.
  • Added pronunciation.
  • "Beaulieu received no casualties while performing her duties": I would guess as a repeating frigate she saw no close action at all, and neither gave nor received fire. Is that correct? If so, and the sources support it, it would be worth saying so, as otherwise the "no casualties" implies she was in close action.
  • I do not have the sources to explicitly say that she either did or did not use her guns in anger. I've added a source that includes Beaulieu's log for the battle, but even that doesn't provide any detail.
  • "Endymion was unable to attack her because of the Dutch ship's well-chosen position": something to do with the wind direction, I would guess, but can it be made clearer?
  • Reworded.
  • "Brutus was one of seven ships to escape Camperdown". Our article on the battle says the British captured 11 ships and there were 15 ships of the line and 6 frigates, so by that account it would appear more than seven ships escaped.
  • Oops, that should have been "ships of the line".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the review, certainly some points there I'd not thought of. Have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An interesting read, particularly the Chevette action. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

  • "a repeating frigate" falls foul of MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Possibly curable by the use of your standard footnote?
  • Added the footnote to main text and removed the link, because I think the note is more easily accessible than the jumble of roles linked to at frigate.
  • "completed a cutting out expedition against the French corvette Chevrette in Camaret Bay." "cutting out" also raises NOFORCELINK issues. Replacing "against" with 'capturing' would solve it.
  • Done.
  • The infobox has "Broken up c.1809". Why the "circa", which is not reflected in either the lead or the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for having a look! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kusma edit

Reviewing...

  • "Beaulieu did not have good sailing qualities" is this speed or manoeuvrability or both?
  • Per Gardiner's comment in the main text, as no sailing reports survive for the ship this has to (annoyingly) remain a general remark only
  • I don't have access to any sources that might demonstrate notability (my French works only go up to 1786), so will leave it as is for now.
  • Design and construction: "carronades were lighter" lighter than what?
  • Added.
  • Service: I like the recruiting broadsheet, but for something as text-based as this, shouldn't the alt text contain the actual text? Currently it is an alternate caption more than something useful for the blind.
  • Added.
  • "The loss of the colonies would have a severe impact on the French economy" but they regained most of these colonies later? Might be helpful to mention that the loss was temporary.
  • This is written to demonstrate the aim of the British expedition rather than the result, I think mentioning the eventual loss of the colonies again would do more to confuse the reader.
  • Prizes: "Fate" here is what the Beaulieu did to the ship in question? (To my naive eyes, "fate" looks more like something that was in the relative future: what eventually happened to that ship after whatever the Beaulieu did to it).
  • Changed to "Result".

Another well written naval history article, so I only had small comments. —Kusma (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Hi, thank you for going through this. I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Beaulieu/archive1&oldid=1213930871"