Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [1].

---

HMS Speedy (1782)

HMS Speedy (1782) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive2

Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC), Benea (talk), Dank (push to talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. I was reviewing my contributions and I came across this article which I was surpised to find hadn't been promoted. I created this article a long time ago, Benea was leading the first nomination but apparently it died due to neglect; the only thing I think that was holding it up before was the image, which I think is fixed. Let me know if you have any questions. Kirk (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Probably should address this first; Dank helped quite a bit with the copyediting of the article and volunteered to help with the nomination; Benea deserves all the credit but she hasn't been to Wikipedia for 6 months, so I added her as a courtesy. My contributions are small but I'm sure I'll have plenty before we're through the process and I believe the article is ready for promotion whether or not I get any credit for the nomination. We look forward to your comments. Kirk (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This article was archived from FAC on 5 October with 2 supports, one weak support and no opposes. There was an outstanding image issue and a list of relatively minor issues unaddressed when the nominator apparently walked away. Has the image problem been cleared with Jappalang, who raised it? From the very few minor edits that have taken place since the archiving, it doesn't seem as though the list of points raised by Sarastro has been addressed either. Apart from a couple of tweaks, it looks as though the article stands exactly as it did when it was archived. As to sources, these were cleared by Ealdgyth and have not been changed since, as far as I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the image issue to Kirk. On the question of Sarastro's questions, I'd like for reviewers to make their own judgments about the relevance of those questions from the first FAC. If a reviewer says, "Yes, I'd really like to know about this and this", then we'll research it. If a reviewer takes the position that we need to answer every possible question about historical context in order to succeed at FAC, then a more general discussion about FAC standards for ship articles would be helpful. I'm wondering if we would have lost Benea as a contributor (she hasn't edited since September) if we had had such a conversation the first time around, rather than putting the whole burden on her. At the time, I was too timid to say anything, and was thinking it was "not my job", but I should have said something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The image in question currently has a date of early 1800's, although the museum has it catalogued without a date. There's a possibility it was in a book with a better citation, and there's two or three images that could replace it at the top if we're so concerned with the outside possibility of a copyright issue with an anonymous work that is pretty obviously from the early 19th century. Regarding Sarastro's questions most seemed like minor things to me; as Dank said we can just leave those questions to this FAC review. However, one specific point; while some of Cochrane's exploits are fictionalized in the Hornblower series, its much more fiction than Master and Commander. I think Sarastro was referring specifically Hornblower and the Hotspur, while the Hotspur is a sloop that's about it as far as simliarity to Speedy goes. I hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail about the image in question. I did find it in a book, Nelson Against Napoleon: From the Nile to Copenhagen 1798-1801, ed. Robert Gardiner, page 77, no date or creator. Kirk (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment to myself

• I actually don't know whether "apparently warships attempting to attack a British convoy" means they were apparently warships or apparently attempting to attack. I've ordered Henderson's book (Borders is going out of business and I'm getting it cheap), and I'll check this when it arrives. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, Kirk describes them as gunboats, so I've reworded to "gunboats apparently attempting to attack ...". - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I forgot to mention I reworded this. Kirk (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support, mostly on prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Comments (please note that I haven't looked at the previous FAC, so I don't know what issues were previously raised)

• Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • I tried something different here - does this look better than the sandwich?
    • Not really, no...what if you did the same thing but on the other side (under the infobox)?
      • Under the infobox - how's that look? Kirk (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "This is roughly equivalent to £403 thousand in 2011 pounds" - phrasing is a bit awkward
  • I looked into this & that's how the inflation template generates the number; I checked other FA articles and its the same...is that ok? I'm looking into the rest of these.Kirk (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Is "as of 2011" better? I'll try that. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I figured out the number conversion and put it in a note. Kirk (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "giving a complimentary report of Cockburn to take to Hood" - giving who?
  • Reworded.
• Petrel or Peterel?
  • Peterel.
• What is "flag rank"? "closing with them"? Be sure to explain unfamiliar terms for non-specialist readers
  • I fiddled with this and replaced "flag rank" with Admiral of the Fleet; I reworded "closing with them".
• "30 yards" - what is this in metric?
  • Fixed.
• "at dawn on 6 May" - could you remind the reader what year this is?
  • Fixed.
• Be consistent in when numbers are spelled out
  • Nothing stood out when I checked - its pretty consistent about using written numbers of guns (six 12-pound guns), for example. Anything specific?
    • "5 armed vessels". Also, use a consistent time format.
      • Personally, I'm with you, Nikki ... the part of WP:ORDINAL that says "5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs" has proved to be almost impossible to follow in a consistent manner. But I believe that's the justification behind "12 merchant ships and 5 armed vessels". - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Reading quickly, I didn't see any military times, everything is a.m. and p.m. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, but also need to look for 1 a.m. vs 1:00 a.m. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
          • AFAIK, they mean two different things, Nikki, just like "1 inch" and "1.00 inches" mean two different things. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
            • I would 3 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. but it doesn't sound like there's agreement. Other than that...? Kirk (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
  • Ok I believe I fixed all of these. Thanks for your review. Kirk (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. FYI Reviewers: I'm going to be away until Monday, so don't expect any responses until next week. Kirk (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I should be around for the duration of this FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments, inclined to Support: It seems my previous comments are causing a bit of a fuss, so I apologise! As I said before, this is a really good piece of work and very enjoyable. My questions were mainly to see if any more detail was available to clarify some minor points, but if the information is not available, there is no problem at all. Several of my comments have been cleared up, these are the only ones outstanding.

• Any more details of her early career out of Humber? What kind of role did she perform?
  • I doubt there are any, but I'm working on getting a copy of Winfield.
• Any details of the vessels she captured while blockading Genoa on her own? Presumably they were quite small.
  • The source doesn't specify any details.
• When Eyre took over, was he still with Sutherland while part of the siege of Bastia?
  • It sounds like he was with Hood.

Fair enough for all of these, if the information is not available it's not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Having silenced the shore battery..." How?
  • I reworded this.
• "...and then re-floated and sailed the four merchant vessels they had been escorting, which had run themselves aground to avoid capture, back out to sea under heavy musket fire from the beach." This seems like an afterthought. Would it be better to mention this before the capture of the French ships?
  • I redid this - Dank, can you check this over?
    • Did some copyediting on this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• What happened to Elphinstone; i.e. why did Dowman take over?
  • I haven't been able to determine that other than he was promoted to Post-Captain, retired as a Post-Captain and didn't die.
    • I added a note about which rank would command a sloop such as Speedy. With this specific question; Elphinstone was promoted at some point to Post-Captain, which meant he would command a post ship that was rated, such as a frigate, and a sea officer with the rank of commander would took his place, but I don't know specifically what happened here. He's wasn't an important enough Elphinstone to warrant an entry in the Navy Biography book by James.Kirk (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "After Defender headed out to sea, Speedy ran in and anchored within 30 yards of the middle ship." Isn't this a little ... reckless?? If so, is it worth a comment?
  • Added a comment.
• Do we know the name of the other merchant ship attacked by the gunboats off Algeciras? It may make that part slightly easier to follow.
  • Not that I can find.

As above, not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I feel the part about the Intrepide is slightly too dramatic; rather than "a strange ship", why not simply say "the 6-gun privateer Interpide"? Or "a ship which emerged/turned out to be..." Feel free to disagree!
  • "Strange" was removed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• As far as Hornblower goes, a few of Cochranes actions were copied in the Hornblower books, but I'm afraid I don't have anything at hand to give examples and I imagine they are fictionalised enough to be irrelevant to this article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I never found a secondary source which connected a Hornblower-plot point with the Speedy but we can keep an eye out.

I don't blame you, I blame myself for not speaking up when I suspected Benea needed some help. On your questions, I've just bought one of the main sources (Henderson) and I'll have to wait for it to arrive; in the meantime, I'll ask for help at MILHIST. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I think I addressed most of these points...let me know what you think. Kirk (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything seems good now, so switched to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments There's no rule that says you must do this, but it would make me oh so very peaches 'n cream happy if you would pretty pretty please change all the cites to reflect all authors, e.g. change "Adkins" to "Adkins & Adkins" or "Adkins and Adkins", ditto for "Colledge & Wardlow", "James & Chamier" and any others. Meanwhile, "Lavery" in cites but not refs. GlitchCraft (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is that I don't want to mess with what Benea did unless we know there's a reason to mess with it, and some books are commonly known by one author. I know style manuals are generally fine with listing one author, but if this is usually the way it's done at FAC, I can make the change. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Benea says on her talk page: "The references are the way I've always done them, and I'd be happy to see them left as they are, as my thoughts match your position." - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments. Switched to support. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two minor questions left on the talk page, neither of which should hold up promotion, so I am switching to support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments: I really good article. I only found one issue—the notes run from B to E... why not A to D? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. Fifelfoo just removed note A in the last edit. But good news ... Benea is back, and she's fighting for the note :) This is a rather complex issue, and I'll look for some economics folks to help us out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd really rather not oppose on grounds of original research and being incorrect in fact, which is why I quietly deleted the note using the cost of bread for wage earners in the 18th century to inflate the cost of light warship construction. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hi all, sorry to have been away. I'm back for a while now, and would be happy to use my sources, etc to bring this to a successful conclusion after the last nom petered out halfway through. As for Fifelfoo, if this is a more general change in policy I'm happy to see the change, if not, please get this sorted out at a higher level and not make this article a test case. Benea (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The incorrect use of Template:Inflation has been repeatedly raised here. Template:Inflation bares a reasonably clear warning against using CPI to inflate capital goods. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Great to see you back, Benea. Fifelfoo has a point ... and not only about the {{inflation}} template. User:Protonk and many others make the case that when you go back too far (maybe 1800-ish), there's no table you can use to give a conversion that makes any sense in today's pounds, because different things had a different value in relation to each other. So what we're doing currently at A-class is just not to give a converted figure for older ships (and we're flexible on what "older" means). The best link I have for you is this one, which also links to a discussion at the Kenilworth Castle A-class review. It wouldn't bother me a bit to go with Fifelfoo's edit and just omit the conversion, although as Visionholder points out, if we do that, I'll have to re-number (re-letter?) the notes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, and I quite understand the arguments (I have done post-graduate level economics). It was not in the article originally but was included at another editor's insistence at some earlier review. My main aim to be sure is that this is something that isn't go to go back and forth one way or the other and may lead to reviews being scuppered. Benea (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I was brusque. Was the request at GA or MILHIST-A? If it was at MILHIST then I might go have some words on their policy pages about economics. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Speedy (1782) (where it was argued that it might be beneficial for younger readers). I argued briefly against it but it seems to be a well-intentioned personal preference on the part of one editor. No particular policy was mentioned, but at the time it didn't seem worth holding a strong opinion about, as the trend seemed to be to put these conversions on many similar articles. Benea (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've re-lettered now, since it looks like the note is going to stay gone. I can't speak for the other reviewers, but I generally just let people argue these things for a while ... it's the only way to find out where everyone stands. I'm satisfied at this point that we don't want to give conversions (CPI or otherwise) to present value for older ships, castles, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support This is an extremely well written article. I have only three suggestions, and none of them is necessary for this to have my support. These are just ideas, and it's up to you whether or not you want to use them.

Lead

I would suggest changing "American War of Independance" to "American Revolutionary War", which is a much more common name. I suspect that some might get confused and think it was some other war. I'm assuming here that "Revolutionary War" is also the more common name in the UK. If not, please ignore this suggestion.

From our article of the same name:

British writers generally favor "American War of Independence", "American Rebellion", or "War of American Independence".

- Dank (push to talk)

Yup, I thought that might be the case. I've never heard it worded that way before!-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Downman and Brenton

"The gunboats were attempting to catch the Unity when Brenton took his ship through the flotilla, close enough to break many of their oars, maintaining a constant fire from his guns and with every spare member of the crew firing muskets." This reads a little confusing. Maybe the section about the oars could be put into parenthesis?

I'm sorry, we're constrained by style guidelines and style guides here that advise us not to replace the only two commas in the sentence by dashes or parentheses. - Dank (push to talk)

French and Papal career

Maybe you could wikilink "broken up" here. It's linked in the lead, but nowhere else in the article that I noticed.-RHM22 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Speedy_(1782)/archive2

Comments. Not much to quibble at; this is a fine article (and I laughed out loud at the description of Cochrane's capture of the Gamo).

• Any particular reason why the ship is described as a brig in the lead but as a brig-sloop in the first sentence of the body?
  • It's Benea's call but I'm fine with it, since more readers will know the term "brig", and we try to reduce the effort needed to read the lead. - Dank (push to talk)

    I thought it might be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "Tons" capitalized? Is this standard in ship articles?
  • I changed it to tons - its not capitalized in the source.Kirk (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• The abbreviation "pdr" is only used twice; elsewhere it's "pounder". Any reason not to use "pounder" throughout? If it's a standard abbreviation I think it's OK but it should be defined on first use, and used more than once in the text in that case.
  • Oops, fixed. - Dank (push to talk)

    OK; I also fixed the example in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Downman captured "a number of vessels" and "captured five privateers"; is the second just a repetition of the first? If so I would cut the first phrase.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Eyre endured a harsh time in captivity": I would prefer "Eyre endured a harsh captivity"; it's the captivity, not the time, that is harsh.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• One more comment: isn't it the case that back then capturing a ship led to an award of prize money to the capturing crew? Should some mention be made of those amounts? Perhaps that's less relevant to Speedy than to the men commanding her, but I thought I'd ask.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, crews were awarded prize money. The awards were Gazetted, which means they are verifiable as to having occurred, but not the amounts. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I looked at this after seeing Mike Christie's recommendation here, and I have to say the article is overall excellent. It easily meets the FA criteria in my opinion and Cochrane's exploits in the ship make a damn good ripping yarn to boot. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see any issues that would prevent promotion. Some minor filling in of details could be done from The Times and the London Gazette, but the article is ready for promotion IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review

Any volunteers? I haven't heard back from the NMM - should we change the image in the infobox? Kirk (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, we should not change the image in the infobox. It is clearly PD and there has been no challenge on Commons as to its status. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, that's what I think too. The images were reviewed in the last FAC so I think we have the required reviews and support for promotion.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

These fractions are horrible, Tony (at least, and others) has objected to them on many previous FACs, please find a way to replace them with something more visually appealing if possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy was so named to symbolise this new approach, and measured 207 21⁄94 tons bm with a total length of 78 feet 3 inches (23.85 m). She was armed with fourteen 4-pounders and twelve ½-pounder swivel guns, and carried a complement of 90 men.

Got 'em, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems very odd that we are actually reducing the accuracy and detail of the article based on the opinion that fractions are visually 'horrible'. The Builder's Old Measurement is simply expressed as a fraction. Benea (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't suggest they be removed, rather rewritten without the clunky frac template, which distorts the text size. Can't you just write 21/94 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if you want to add it, Benea. I was concerned that it would be slightly jarring to modern readers, but I often lose these battles :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I got reverted by MJRoots. Not a lot I can do about it, Sandy, as long as SHIPS editors are adamant, and MOSNUM seems to require the {{frac}} template. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation style is somewhat clunky, with so much repeat info, but I 'spose it can't be opposed because it's consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can it say British Royal Navy? There are other Royal Navies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much with Sandy on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a script to add nbsp's? - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Shimgray got them. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.