Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Nile/archive1

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 23:34, 25 January 2010 [1].

Battle of the Nile edit

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Battle of the Nile/archive1

An article on what some consider the highest point of Horatio Nelson's illustrious career: a British fleet, 2,000 miles from the nearest reinforcements, entered an uncharted harbour at night and almost completely destroyed a stronger French fleet anchored in an ostensibly strong defensive formation. In one stroke Nelson changed the direction of the war and achieved one of the most complete victories in naval history. The article has been dramatically expanded and improved since September and although it is long, I'm really not sure where else to cut given that two sub-articles have already been spun off the main body of text. It has over 200 citations and I feel that it now comprehensively covers this highly important battle and the events surrounding it. It has had a Military history peer review and is now ready for your comments. Many thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using {{harvnb}} for the references so that they can be linked to the bibliography section, so the user doesn't have to scroll down to look it up. Recently featured articles like Dick Turpin, which have long list of bibliographic references use it for easier reference checking.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this, but it will take a while to get through them all. Any other comments?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAs need only have a consistent referencing style (which this article does), not a specific style. If Diaa would like a different style, s/he is of course welcome to invest all of time it takes to recode the article. It is not inconsiderable. Awadewit (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am reluctant to make such time-consuming changes for what seems to be so little gain, particularly in the light of this diff, which only seems to add to the load. Can anyone explain to me what the purpose of including the date is if there are no seperate references by the same author? Diaa, are you going to make these changes or should I revert to before I started experimenting?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be better if the references have links that go directly to the bibliographical reference, I don't care much about the style. Revert your changes I will take care of the referencing when I have some time with search and replace.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also worth pointing out that the more code-heavy articles are, the more intimidating they are for new users. Having a referencing system that is complex deters new users from contributing and adding new references. That is one reason I tend to use the simplest referencing system I can find. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have revert back to the original. Thank you both for your input, and I have to agree with Awadewit on this one, although I have no prejudice against Diaa making these changes at a later date if they see fit to. regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I would suggest copy/pasting the output of the current templates onto a text file, repasteing them back onto the page to get rid of the templates, restoring wikilinks italics etc., then use {{wikicite}} for the internal links. Or whatever.• Ling.Nut 11:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Refs all formatted A-OK. • Ling.Nut 11:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the refs to make them linked. The Mostert book appears to have a 13-digit ISBN; the 10-digit would be more consistent. Other errors? I hope not. • Ling.Nut 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 13 digit is the only ISBN I could find on my rather battered copy of his book - this should be enough I think. If there are errors then please point them out.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. • Ling.Nut 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
- ~~ISBN returns an error for the Adkins ref, please double check.~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is done now. Thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support

My coverage of the article to date is insufficient for a vote, I will revisit.

Criterion 1a

With reference to: "In spite of the overwhelming British victory in the climactic battle, the campaign has sometimes been considered a strategic success for France. Historian Edward Ingram has noted that if Nelson had successfully intercepted Bonaparte at sea as ordered, the ensuing battle could have annihilated both the French fleet and the transports. As it was, Bonaparte was free to continue the war in the Middle East and later to return to Europe personally unscathed.[189] The potential of a successful engagement at sea to change the course of history is emphasised by the list of French army officers carried aboard the convoy who later formed the core of the generals and marshals under Emperor Napoleon. In addition to Bonaparte himself, Louis Alexandre Berthier, Auguste de Marmont, Jean Lannes, Joachim Murat, Louis Desaix, Jean Reynier, Antoine-François Andréossy, Jean-Andoche Junot, Louis-Nicolas Davout and Dumas, as well as Kléber and Caffarelli who were to die in Egypt, were all passengers on the cramped Mediterranean crossing."
Avoid weasel word 'sometimes'

I don't think its weaselly in this context: It is a fact that this point has been raised, and I cite a historian who has done so. Can you suggest an alternative?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knee-jerk reaction to someanything :)
Perhaps "Historian Edward Ingram has noted that... and the transports. This would imply that in spite of the overwhelming..."
Alternatively, "Edward Ingram contends that the campaign can be considered a strategic success for France in that..."

I'm not totally convinced by either of these options, I'll think about it a bit more and get back to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather too easy to read the full list of officers as having died in Egypt, leading to a logical contradiction

I have eliminated the officers killed in Egypt as neither is very important and it was potentially confusing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'emphasised' to 'underscored'?

Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to the crossing?

Yes, Mediterranean campaign of 1798. It is a {{details}} link in the first section of the article - shall I link it again here?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the MoS requirement to avoid double-linking can be taken too far in situations where there is ambiguity. I couldn't find it in the lead either, notably missing in " ...the climax of a naval campaign that had ranged across the Mediterranean..."

Now linked in both additional places.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic lead, however it overlooks the aforementioned stategic failure - I'm not sure if the failure is sufficiently notable for the lead.

Its not, it is a minority historical opinion worth mentioning in the article itself but not within the already overcrowded lead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, language is technically brilliant, but sometimes falls on the side of excessively obtuse and/or convoluted: more appropriate for a scholarly work than an encyclopedia article.

I can see your point, but can you be more specific - this is quite a complex subject and I did my best to simplify it where I could.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 4

I'll start by saying that I am hopeless with technical image issues and will need you to be much more specific with your comments below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant source material, please search for higher resolution versions, as with "Nelson at the Battle of the Nile.jpg". I'm aware that these are not normally available, but would be wonderful.
Gamma correction may lead to significant improvements, especially with the above image.

Sadly, the jpg artifacts in this image renders it unsalvagable. Perhaps one day WikiMedia will be able to invest in prints.

Please check all artworks for appropriate templates, for example "Aboukir.jpg" requires work.

Note that "Battle of the Nile, Whitcombe.jpg" has a correct image template, while numerous others are described in plaintext, often incompletely, as with "Luny Thomas Battle Of The Nile August 1st 1798 At 10pm.jpg". Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I still do not understand any of what you are asking me. Is there a link you can provide explaining the problem more clearly?
"Luny Thomas Battle Of The Nile August 1st 1798 At 10pm.jpg" and "Battle of Aboukir Bay.png" still require correct templates. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant map, svg is preferred if available.

Template still lacking. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not sure what you are referring to, can you clarify or simplify some more?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, FA quality images.

Thankyou for your interest and comments, they are much appreciated. If you have any further issues (and more detail regarding the image problems) I would be happy to make further improvements. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Criterion 1a

"The battle has remained prominent in popular consciousness" should, I believe, be "the popular consciousness" although I would prefer something more punchy for the last sentence like "The Battle of the Nile has been immortalised in numerous works..." or "The legend of the Battle of the Nile perseveres..." or similar. A little dramatic, but such a good lead needs to end strongly.

Had a go, how does that look?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, perhaps take a look at the repeated "legendary", "legend" in the last two sentences. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The French Directory developed various schemes to counter British opposition,..." could be phrased as "...investigated a number of strategic options to counter British opposition,..."

Good suggestion, done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...developed a powerful fleet at Toulon..." to "...assembled a powerful fleet at Toulon..."

That repeats assembled too soon. I'm open to changing this, but it will have to be a different word.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check punctuation in "...and, in exchange for substantial financial compensation, handed..."

Punctuation added.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check tenses / rephrase "While Bonaparte was sailing to Malta, the Royal Navy had re-entered the Mediterranean for the first time in over a year."

Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Marching along the coast, the French army stormed Alexandria and captured the city,[33] Bonaparte then leading the main force of his army inland.[34]" could be rephrased "and Bonaparte led..." to read more easily.

Rephrased--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"larger ships of the French fleet" could be "French ships of the line"?

That's not quite right - the smaller ships of the line could have entered the port, but the larger ones (80 guns and bigger) could not. I'll leave it as it is for now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result, an alternative anchorage at Aboukir Bay was selected..." Check comma. Also, the lead alludes to the (perceived) strength of Aboukir Bay as a defensive position. It would be nice if this tied in.

I looked at punctutation and made a change, but I'm reluctant to discuss the merits of Aboukir Bay here when there is a whole section devoted to it immediately below as I'll only be repeating myself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...information was finally obtained..." scans poorly, similarly the remainder of "...with his scouts..."

Both rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys D'Aigalliers, believed to be a formidable defensive position." in the lead appears to contradict "...anchor in Aboukir Bay, a shallow and exposed anchorage..." and "...Brueys refused, in the belief that his squadron could provide essential support to the French army on shore."

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. The bay was a weak position, but Brueys decided to stay there to support the troops on shore and arranged his ships into what he believed was a strong formation. I'm not sure which part of this is unclear.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps due to experience with land warfare, I associated a "strong defensive position" with geographic advantages, hence the apparent contradiction. Perhaps clarify in the body that Brueys believed that the nature and disposition of the ships constituted a formidable defense without geographic advantages. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make head or tail of "It is possible that Bonaparte envisaged the anchorage as a temporary base: on 27 July he expressed the expectation that Brueys had transferred to Alexandria and three days later issued orders for the fleet to make for Corfu in preparation for naval operations against the Ottoman territories in the Balkans,[44] although the courier was intercepted and killed by Bedouin partisans.[45]"

What part is confusing you?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A land base for the army or a naval base? How does that connect with the expectation of Brueys having transferred to Alexandria (with or without the ships?) and how does this connect with the preparations for operations against the Ottomans? I feel like a lot of context is required to understand this sentence. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to anchorage insead of base - does that help?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I can't see a comparison of the number of guns in each vessel / fleet. Since weight of cannon was such a key determinant of the outcome of an engagement (as with Bellerophon vs L'Orient), this is a significant problem in reading the flow of the battle. Anyone not aware ot the significance of weight of fire in naval combat in this period could benefit from a brief introduction. Perhaps there is a link to this concept?

There is a whole paragraph on this in the reaction section. I left it for there because it is a matter of historiological debate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. A brilliant piece of work. Dhatfield (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, much appreciated. Can you comment further above regarding images?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about giving you a hard time, but excellent deserves to be perfect. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have entered a supporting vote for promotion to Featured - this is most certainly some of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, much appreciated. I have tried to deal with the outstanding issues in your review, but I'm afraid that I am still completely at sea regarding the image problems you have raised.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a brilliant article, and a delight to read. I've used this campaign and battle as examples of intelligence gathering in university classes, and I have yet to read such a masterful description, explanation and summary of interpretations of the battle. This said, I have a couple of minor comments that I hope will enhance the article.

when you mention Nelson, first section, and his injuries at St. Vincent, that sentence is confusing (and long). It might be nudged Nelson was a highly successful officer who had been blinded in one eye during fighting in Corsica in 1794, commended for his capture of two Spanish ships of the line at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797 but then lost an arm at the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in July 1797.[17]

The highly successful Nelson had been blinded in one eye during the fighting in Corsica in 1794, commended for his capture of two Spanish Ships of the line at the night Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797, and lost an arm at the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in July 1797.

I wasn't totally happy with your suggested version, and I experimented a bit, eventually breaking it into two sentences and adding a little bit of detail.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~we need an explanation of the illuminated white ensign--to the average reader, it won't be clear that ships were often damaged with friendly fire because they were confused with the enemy.~~

Clarified I think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Before this time tomorrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster Abbey. Needs an explanation, I think. In the typically oblique style of 18th century bragging, it's fairly obscure.~~

I have explained it, although I don't have a source that picks it apart like that, so i hope my interpretation is acceptable.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after the French order to set sails was abandoned, the British fleet began rapidly approaching once more and Brueys, now certain that an attack was coming that night,.. now certain that an attack was coming that night... now expecting a night attack...

Changed (with a slight adjustment).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~ship's boats, the brig Mutine and the 50-gun sounds like the ship's boats are the brig and ...~~

I've tried to clarify this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

brief explanation of why the 10 year old son of Casabianca was there.

I don't actually have a source explaining why he was there, although it was not unusual for boys of his age to accompany their fathers aboard warships at that time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but we still need an explanation. You could find a source, perhaps. Somewhere in one of your books there must be a statement about why a young boys was on a ship. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adkins, refers to children on shipboard, pp. 32 at Nile specifically (but focuses on women) and 200 and 371 (Warship Defence). See also Roy Adkins, Nelson's Trafalgar, pp 77-79. Or you could also explain the age of midshipmen...Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re fire on the Orient, I added the word "conversely"

Thankyou--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, TERRIFIC article. Wholehearted support from Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, your comments and support were much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

w/ the one exception, all my quibbles have been fixed. None of them stood in the way of support for this article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing: you might add the first two lines of the poem, The boy stood on the burning deck/Whence all but he had fled... after you mention it. Many people would have heard those lines, but not connect the poem to the event. Just a thought. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose on an~~ Image review:

File:Seeschlacht bei Abukir.jpg: What is the title of this painting? Who painted it? When was it created and published? The source given points to Luny's Battle of Cape St Vincent, which is a different painting, and does not name this uploaded painting as The Battle of the Nile or attributes this image to Luny. In fact, it seems only the Wikiprojects have attributed this painting to Luny (was the German Wikipedia, where the image came from, the first to attribute it to him?). The data and license stated are not verified; for all we know it could be a modernist's hand at trying old painting techniques.

~~All other images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Whoops, somehow missed that. I have replaced it was another image that I have uploaded that definately is Thomas Luny on the battle of the Nile. Since I am fairly hopeless when it comes to images, can you provide assistance with Dhatfield's image queries above that I am struggling to understand? Also, some recent edits to the article removed the image sizes which I had set quite large on the request of an author at peer review. There seems to be some confusion on this issue - is it acceptable to set image sizes or not? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with the image descriptions now. Dhatfield (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Jappalang has done a lot of work on the images (for which I am very grateful) and I think this has probably taken care of it. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have recently added another image that I think excellently illustrates French dispositions before the battle. It is out of copyright, has alt text and should conform with all other guidelines. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Weak support:

~~Why the french were sure of an imminent Irish uprising?~~

This is a slightly tricky question. There is a source referenced in the article that cites the Irish Rebellion as a factor in this campaign in the manner described. It is true that the French and the Irish Rebels had been planning the rebellion since 1794, and twice before French troops had been defeated en route to landings in Ireland, so an uprising there was on the cards at some stage. However, when the actual rebellion broke out in 1798 (precipitated by the arrest of several senior rebels by the British) it took the French by surprise and their reaction was totally inadequate, ending in disaster for both them and the Irish. This is all synthesis on my part, and has not (as far as I am aware) been connected to the campaign other than as already described in the article. I'm reluctant to add any more without reference to new sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the source hints at it but fails to elaborate, we can do not much about it. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do springs (coil springs?) on anchor cables help to turn anchored ships?

Coiling an anchor cable makes it taught (known as "putting springs on a cable"). If done at the bow and stern, the effect is to hold a ship rigid and in position (particularly if, like the British, you were unable to furl your sails in the midst of battle). By releasing these springs, a ship is able to rapidly and effectively turn to meet new dangers or targets without going through the time-consuming process of hauling in the anchor. I'm not sure whether I can properly source this explanation, and in any case I think it is a bit long to go in the article at this point.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a confusing point. All this time, I was having images of coiled springs and going "that should not be how it was done". I read your explanation above that the "spring" is the tension of the anchor cables instead of any mechanical device. Perhaps a slight explanation is in order, else others might think of metallic springs "poing-ing" off the ropes and hull. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an error in my reply above - I mentioned this to a friend who knows a lot more about sailing than I do and he attempted to explain it to me. The effect I described above is similar in that the "spring" is formed by the anchor cable itself, not an external device, but one of its great advantages is that you only use one anchor not two. A quick Google search confirmed his explanation (confusing though it is). I will try to briefly clarify this in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(add-on) "... in reference to the rewards of victory or the traditional burial place of British military heroes.": this clause seems to require a source. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have one - Nelson, who was a notorious show-off, famously quoted before the battle that by tomorrow he would have a peerage or Westminster Abbey. Most sources repeat this but I haven't yet seen one explaining it, probably on the assumption that a reader of British naval history would always know what it meant. On Wikipedia this cannot be taken for granted and a reviewer asked me to expand a bit. I have no problem removing it, but it does rather bring your point into conflict with his.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the prose a bit (which seems pretty good in the first place). Content-wise, the article is very comprehensive on the battle. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prose edits (although I had to tweak one or two that strayed slightly from the meaning of the sources) and all the image work (you might be interested to have a look at the work in progress at User:Jackyd101/Images of the Battle of the Nile too - not sure what I'll do with it at the moment though). I've done my best to answer your queries above. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my work load has increased greatly recently (I cannot devote further time here for the moment)... I am putting in a weak support first; if my above issues have been clarified (judged either by the delegate or a concensus by other editors) then consider this a full support. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky, your excellent pictures could be better seen if they were slightly larger. I see from above that at some point the picture sizes were changed, but these are such magnificent pictures that add to the quality of the article, so I think you should add the upright=1.? something parameter in the picture code. 1.4-1.75 somewhere in there. That makes it still proportionate, as I understand these things (which I don't understand well, but...). Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, but it made them MASSIVE, so I've taken it down to 1.1. I don't really understand what I did, but it seems to have improved the situation somewhat.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are problems with punctuation in the image captions, pls review per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 25 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.