Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [1].

Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile edit

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is part of a project to develop the Battle of the Nile and associated articles. This is a listing of the ships engaged, their commanders and the casualties each one suffered in the battle as best as can be determined by the sources. Please note that the ships are ordered by the position they took in the battle line and thus the tables are not intended to be sortable. Any comments and suggestions welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Very good list (and article).
  1. The lead reads nicely, but I am not sure that it is clear what is included in the list (scope) after reading it. Could you add something to the effect that it is a list of participating ships and casualities.
    • I will work on this. I've had a go, let me know what you think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Not sure what the MOS says about italics, but fine for me.
  2. Could you make the columns sortable?
    • As explained above, the table are arranged in the order of battle as per the title. This means that the ships are listed in the sequence they were deployed in during the battle. Making them sortable would dilute this effect. The lists are quite short in any case and I can't really see any benefit in making them sortable: what details would need sorting?
    It is good that the tables are arranged in the order of battle and I would not want to change it. What I suggest is to make them automagically sortable as per Help:Sorting which does not require much work for the editor and gives an added advantage for the reader (to see which ship suffered most/second most/... casualties and so on). Basically all columns except for "Notes" could be made sortable. The present order could be left as default order so nothing is lost.
    • I've had a go, but the header lines seem to disrupt the sorting.
    Possibly this could help, but I am not an expert in advanced sorting tables either. Alternatively headers like "Rear-Admiral Nelson's fleet", "Vice-Admiral Brueys' fleet" and "Line of battle" (Why two headers for the French fleet?) could be removed from the table and put in a short text just before the respective tables. Same for the colspans at the bottom of the table.
  3. Did you consider marking ships that were destroyed somehow (by color for instance)? If it is useful you could also mark varying degrees of damage.
    • I could mark the destroyed ships, although note that the "Notes" column already does this by giving details on degrees of damage / causes of destruction. I'm loathe to highlight the ships based on the level of damage as this factor is relative and can vary quite widely - two heavily damaged ships can be damaged in completely different ways.
    Agreed about not marking damaged ships. I would mark the destroyed ships, since it is faster for the reader to see that only French ships were destroyed.
    • On reflection, I'm quite reluctant to do this. There were four French ships destroyed, but each was destroyed in very different circumstances, and grouping them together in this context seems quite forced. In addition, three French ships were destroyed by their captors three weeks after the battle as the damage they suffered was too severe for them to sail ever again. Three more ships were so badly damaged that they were unable to serve as frontline warships and were eventually scrapped. Thus highlighting the ships that were destroyed seems a bit like using a roller to paint a portrait: it irons out a lot of the detail (which is already included in the lead and the notes column).
    Good point. Done.
  4. If there is only one number in the "Casualties" column of the French fleet, does it refer to those wounded (or killed or total)? You might want to add "0" like for the British list.
    • If there is one number, it is because the Killed/Wounded/Total boxes have been bypassed and so this is a total casualties figure (note how the boxes have been merged). The reason why the figure is not broken down further is that I have not been able to locate sources giving a more precise total. I'm not sure what you mean by the 0?
    If it is the total number, wouldn't it be more natural to put it into the "Total" column (and question marks in the "Killed/Wounded" columns)? (The numbers which are now centered appear as if they belong to the "Wounded" column, that's why I suggested to add "0" to the "killed" column...)
    • I can do this perhaps, although it looks pretty messy. What should I do about the "Heavy" and "Light" entries?
    I don't have any really good suggestion. (A footnote saying that these numbers are for total casualties?) Maybe another reviewer is more creative than me?
  5. I am not sure if "Heavy" and "Light" are proper words to combine with "Casualties" (rather with losses)!?
    • They are standard terms in military history texts.
    OK, am not familiar with such texts.
  6. Why did you choose to give precise numbers of casualties for the British fleet and a range for the French fleet? (even though note A says that there are various numbers in literature).
    • Because precise numbers exist for the British fleet (as given in the table) but they don't for the French. The footnote just gives a bit more detail into the range of figures available for both sides.
    I think I got it. Because William Laird Clowes is the only one who gives numbers for every ship. Correct?

bamse (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct, although William James gives totals for most of the British ships which are identical to Clowes' figures (he just doesn't present it in a table).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments. I will work on the first one you raised, and have given answers above explaining problems with enacting the others. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. 5. (and probably "6. as well) is done. I'd like to see "4." addressed since it is confusing (at least to me) without further explanation. Don't feel strongly about "3.", but "2." would be a good feature to have in my opinion. bamse (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"3." and "1." done. With "4." let's wait for other reviewers. If it is not confusing for them, it can be considered done. Just one more quick question: Why are the French ships rated according to the Rating system of the Royal Navy? Was there no French rating system at the time?bamse (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain whether the French had a formal rating system (although a possibly informal one is often hinted at in histories). Here it is used for comparative purposes. I could delink the rate column on that table if that would help? On a wider note, thankyou very much for your interest and comments, they have been very helpful. On the outstanding issues I'd like to wait for more input from a broader consensus before I do anything at this stage. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following additional input below, I have clarified the heavy and light casualties sections - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Looks good now and the sorting feature is not that important. Therefore Support.bamse (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksyou very much - Happy New Year.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - nice work.
  • Caption needs no full stop as it's not a complete sentence.
  • Quite right, done.
  • Is it worth linking British fleet to something appropriate? Is there something appropriate (Royal Navy)? Same with French... probably not or you would have done it already...!
  • Royal Navy and French Navy would be the links, but that would mean linking a title, which I am quite reluctant to do as it is frowned on and doesn't look very tidy.
  • It's early for me today, but what do you mean by linking a title? I was implying you could link those two in the prose ("a British fleet and a French fleet"), not the section headings... The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see. Done
  • Pedant's corner - is three month campaign hyphenated, e.g. should it be three-month campaign?
  • Honestly I think it can go either way. I'll do it for you.
  • "13 ships of the line and four frigates" here you could safely use "thirteen" so we don't mix smallish numbers and words.
  • Thankyou - I've always preferred this format, but I've lost count of how many times I've been asked to strictly adhere to the rule of 1-9 in words and anything else in numerals.
  • Discovered at 2pm on 1 August, then "rapid approach of nightfall" - I would have thought nightfall wasn't until around 10pm then?
  • Clarified (hopefully)
  • "Despite the death of the admiral," - worth reinforcing which admiral we're talking about?
  • Named
  • "as can best be established:" - personally I would say "as best as can be established" but that's just an opinion...
  • Good call, changed
  • Any link for "mizen mast" as I've never heard of it!
  • It's not a big deal. I wondered if we had something specifically about a "mizen mast". I think the sailing mast link is okay but a little too general. Never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culloden's notes, first sentence ends in a full stop, second doesn't. Not quite sure of the rules here, but it looked a bit odd...
  • I thought it was a sentence fragment (never sure how they work), but I have added it now.
  • I think your symbol for KIA should be listed in a key because it's not 100% accessible for those who find it harder to see links...
  • Done
  • Mostert's years shouldn't be spaced.
  • I can't find where you mean, can you be a little more specific?
  • Sorry, in the bibliography, title of Mostert's book currently has spaced en-dash, needs to be unspaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. Done. Thanks

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, I think I have addressed all of your comments. Much appreciated!--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also be able to comment on some of the points raised by Bamse above? We are interested in some addition thoughts on the issues from other users before any changes are implemented. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per bamse's comments: I don't think this necessarily needs to be sortable at all, and as you've pointed out, colspan's tend to throw it all out anyway. I hadn't noticed "Heavy" and "Light" and I do have a bit of an issue with that because it's not quantitative and I can't see what that means anywhere. I don't have a big problem with a single figure meaning overall casualties as long as you note it. You haven't referenced the casualties in the Orient, by the way... The Rambling Man (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I have added the word "casualties" to the heavy and light entries in the table to better explain it and sourced the Orient casualties - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments Looks good Jackyd. I've made a few prose adjustments, and I've put some comments below:
    • I've tried a new first line: the old one seemed a bit long and contained a lot of info for one sentence, so I've tried breaking it into 2. I think it reads better this way, but I realise you might not agree!
Much better, thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the suggestion that it might be an idea to highlight French vessels destroyed in the action. I understand your points above, but I think it'll make the list instantly clearer at first glance, whereas at the moment you really need to read to find the lost ships. Using the style applied on lists of VC winners might be an idea, and the key at the top could explain that highlighted vessels are the ones lost during the engagement, not later on. Although all the vessels were lost in different circumstances, the end result is the same (just like the death of VC winners).
OK, I'll give it a go and see what it looks like.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the 3rd para of the lead - "The almost total destruction of the French fleet reversed the strategic situation in the Mediterranean, giving the Royal Navy control of the sea which it would not relinquish until 1815." This leaves me wanting more info - what happened in 1815? Was it Waterloo that lost the RN the Med? I wonder if a note might help, or if there's a appropriate blue link to an article or article's subsection?
Nothing so exciting I'm afraid, 1815 was the year the war ended, thus ending the need for dominance. In fact the Royal Navy remained strong in the Med until 1945, but thats getting off topic somewhat. I'll rephrase the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the French table, Genereux is decribed as "Escaped with Villeneuve on 2 August". I don't know if there's a formality to describing the senior officer, but I'd have thought it would be more logical to say "Escaped with Guillaume Tell"
Either works, I'll rephrase it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise it looks good, nice work. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much, replies above, improvements to follow.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done everything, including adding the colour coding. I'm still not convinced by that, it seems like a broad brush approach to something that is actually quite complex, but since there have been several requests for it I've added it in. Thanks very much for your comments and interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you might not like me saying that it looks good then! So good in fact that I Support promotion. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Intro reads rather long and involved given there's a full article on how the battle went. Perhaps it should concentrate more on where the ships came from to form the fleets? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments.

  1. The lead currently says that the French had 13 ships of the line and four frigates. However it says nothing about the number of British ships (although they are named in the table). It should say that there were 14 British ships of line and one sloop.
    I will add this (although your numbers are not quite correct).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Four French ships were too badly damaged to join him and were beached by their crews, Villeneuve eventually escaped with just two ships of the line and two frigates. On 3 August the last two French ships in the bay were defeated, one surrendering and the other set on fire by its crew. These two sentences are confusing. They convey a wrong impression that the two ships that were defeated on 3 August were the same ships of line that had escaped on the previous days. I think the first sentences should clearly state that they escaped to Malta, while the second should clarify which ships were defeated.
    I have clarified this in the text (although the escaping ships did not all go to Malta). Thanks for your interest and comments - do you have any other points to add?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 05:34, 14 January 2010 (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_list_candidates/Order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_the_Nile/archive1&oldid=338349419"