Wikipedia:Peer review/HMS Alceste (1806)/archive1

HMS Alceste (1806)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering nominating for FA status. Therefore any comments welcome on all aspects. Thanks, Ykraps (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comments:

• Unless there is a controversial fact, there's no need to put two of the same cite in a row. The error looks like this: "The Sun is one solar mass.[1] It is a yellow dwarf star.[1]"

  I've removed a couple of citations that appear quite close together but some paragraphs seem quite long to just be cited at the end. Are there any instances in particular you don't like?--Ykraps (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Adding alt text would be nice, but isn't required for FAC.

  Not required but a good suggestion nevertheless. I have added to all images except the one in the infobox as there is no parameter in the template.--Ykraps (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• All contractions (like couldn't and hadn't) should be expanded.

  Done, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Alceste was a little undermanned" could be a grammatical error. (in Fate)

  Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly but a quick search on Google books suggests that, "a little undermanned" is a quite usual thing to say.[[1]]--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• "...and make off." Shouldn't it be "...and took off" (in lead)

  I was going to say that make off and take off mean the same where I hail from but I get the feeling you're saying it should be in the past tense. I don't think so because we are talking about what Cochrane did at the time (the present for him). If we ignore the middle of the sentence, we are saying he managed to take off, not he managed to took off. By the same token we cannot say that he managed to freed his ship.--Ykraps (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Link: Pensacola, jib-boom, spritsail and stunsail.

  Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest you send to MILHIST A-class review. It makes the jump to FA much easier. (merely a suggestion)--Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  Seems like a good idea. When I have a bit of time to spare, I will nominate. Thanks for all your suggestions.--Ykraps (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  I can nominate it for you if you want. Iazyges (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC) @Ykraps:

  Actually as it is a GA article, it is better than A already. @Ykraps:

Comments from Iazyges

• "having spotted French reinforcements arriving, " Which ones? What ships?

  If you're talking about the lead, then all the information is in the main body of the article. I'm not sure that level of detail belongs in the lead, if that's what you're suggesting.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  While I dont need the names of the ships, perhaps say the amount of ships. Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• In lead paragraph it labels her as a 38 gun frigate, in construction it calls her 14/40, what gives? "When first fitted out, Minerve carried twenty-eight 18 pounders (8.2 kg) as her main battery, fourteen 32 pounders (15 kg) carronades on her quarter-deck, while her forecastle had two 9 pounders (4.1 kg) long guns and two 32 pounders (15 kg) carronades.[1]" Could have butchered my math but that sounds like 36 guns.

  I think I'm right in saying, although I'm struggling to find a source, that Armide frigates were originally rated as 38-40 guns until 1817 when they were re-rated as 44-46 guns. This is because prior to that, cannonades were only counted if they were replacements for long guns. In addition, the number of guns carried, which was always subject to change, didn't always match the rating. I was considering a footnote but as I said, I'm having trouble finding a source so perhaps, in the meantime, it's better to remove the rating figure altogether.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Also French ratings were different to British ratings.--Ykraps (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  As per always countries arbitrarily have different things. Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• "In April 1806 Minerve was commanded by Capitaine Jaques Collet" is their a link to the captain?

  No, unfortunately not. He doesn't even get a mention on the French Wikipedia.--Ykraps (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Hmm I'll see if I can find anything. Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• "and four smaller vessels," Which are?

  The smaller vessels were three brig-corvettes; Lynx, Sylph, and Palinure, and the fourth was a ship-corvette which as yet I've not been able to identify. I think it would be odd to name the four small vessels but not the five ships-of-the-line and five frigates. I'll have a think about some sort of footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Ykraps: Hm, maybe make a short list type thing or a table? Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• "allas then unleashed a devastating broadside.[6] Both ships were badly" I feel that those two paragraphs would be better suited as 1.

  Okay, I have done as you suggest but as this resulted in a very long paragraph, I've created another a little further on.--Ykraps (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• "On 22 May, Alceste encountered some French feluccas" Perhaps a description as to what a felucca is?

  Felucca is linked in the sentence. Are you suggesting a description in addition?--Ykraps (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, a simple description on the page I find to be great for flow so you dont have to leave the article and find out what a felucca is. Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Okay, done.--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• "assuming Alceste had gone to attend to some other business," seems too casual to be encyclopedic.

  Okay, I've changed to simply say, "gone".--Ykraps (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• It lists the feluccas as some to begin with but then says they captured 4 of them, perhaps they should say "More than 4" rather than some?

  I'm not sure. More than four suggests to me perhaps half a dozen whereas there were at least ten: four captured, two were driven onto the rocks, two escaped and the rest (presumably more than two) returned to the safety of the batteries.--Ykraps (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The British lost one man killed and two wounded in the action.[12]" could be better worded.

  Rewritten, "British casualties amounted to..."--Ykraps (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• "that destroyed a French 18-gun brig.[13] " any idea what brig it was?

  No, sources don't identify her.--Ykraps (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Ok. Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• "when word was received of a similar size French squadron heading north." Shouldn't it be similar sized?

  Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks

• "The frigates contained more than 200 cannon," Did they contain them as armament or cargo?

  As cargo for use by the French Army at Trieste. I've tried to make that clear by using words like "transported", and "contained" but obviously not clear enough. In addition a frigate would never be armed with that many guns. Even the largest ships-of-the-line only had just over a hundred. I'll have a think.--Ykraps (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  I've taken inspiration from your question and added the word "cargo".--Ykraps (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• ...and shouldn't it be cannons not cannon?

  Although dictionaries give both plural forms, I think it's more common to simply say cannon particularly in historical military sources.--Ykraps (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Ok. Iazyges (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

End of constructive critism. Iazyges (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC) @Ykraps:

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• This would be a good one to bring to FAC, I think. A-class would work as well.
• Please, please learn how to use commas to give the reader a clue where the main break in a sentence is. You tend to put them everywhere except at the main break. For examples, look at the copyediting I did for you in your most recent FAC. The first problem in this article is in the third sentence: "the ships became entangled and ran aground but Cochrane, having". I'm guessing there will be more.

• I’m not sure what you’re objecting to there. That is one of a pair of parenthetical commas, enclosing a piece of additional information. The sentence reads, “…but Cochrane (having spotted French reinforcements arriving) managed to free his ship and take off”. If you are desperate to lose a comma there, you could flip the sentence, “…but Cochrane managed to free his ship and take off, having spotted French reinforcements arriving”. Or do you mean something else?--Ykraps (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• I did a little copyediting, but I want to start fresh when it gets to FAC. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)