Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the A-Class criteria and has recently gone through a GAN. Not that well-known, Charles Richardson had a long career in the Royal Navy in which he managed to take part in four minor naval actions, three major fleet actions, and even went beyond the realm of most naval officers to participate in no less than six land battles and campaigns. Having served throughout the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Richardson continued to be employed afterwards and created the pièce de résistance of his career in 1821 when his ship caused a major diplomatic incident with the Chinese that did no favours for his mental wellbeing and caused him to retire from the service soon afterwards. He was later knighted for his services and went on to become a vice-admiral. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good. I would recommend breaking "Early career" and "Post-captain" into shorter subsections because their length can be detrimental to readability, especially on mobile. (t · c) buidhe 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Have made an attempt, although not sure if it's exactly what you were describing. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Looks great! (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

I will do a little copy editing as I go, shout if you feel I have messed anything up.

• Suggest Wiktionary linking captain's servant. (Both times.)

• Done

• Some dates, at least the years, in the lead of the various battles he fought in would be helpful.

• Done

• "Richardson then made a valuable contribution in the Battle of Suriname in the following year". Delete "then" - "in the following year" makes it redundant.

• Done

• "that was complimented by Spencer Perceval." Who would be?

• The prime minister! Added.

• "became a vice-admiral in 1847, having been nominated a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in 1841." Why are these out of chronological order?

• No idea. Swapped.

• "On 29 August 1789 Vestal and Richardson were again sent far abroad". Is it known where they departed from? Were they still in the Bangka Strait?

• Per Winfield Vestal had a refit at Portsmouth in May, and Medows' ODNB says he was sent "back" to India. Should I add anything?

An intervening short sentence stating that ship and man returned to England would be helpful.

• Done

• "Governor of Bombay". Why the upper case G?

• My brain likes capitalising things sometimes. Changed.

• "Having stayed on the East Indies Station after this". Do you mean 'Having stayed on on the East Indies Station after this'?

• I don't think so?!

In which case I can't work out what what you have written means. If there is no typo then, erm, I'm really at a loss.

• Having re-read your initial comment I now recognise what you mean. My excuse is that it's late for me!

• "By this time in mainland India the Third Anglo-Mysore War had begun, and Richardson was after the battle given command of Phoenix's boats to coordinate with the army of Major-General Sir Robert Abercromby in operations on a number of rivers against Tipu Sultan." This seems a rather busy sentence. Consider breaking. And possibly rephrasing slightly.

• Made an attempt at combatting this.

• "28-gun frigate". Maybe a footnote to explain what "28-gun" means? (Eg 'This designation indicates number of guns the ship was rated to carry'?)

• Done

• "passed his examination for promotion to lieutenant. The captain of Alexander, Captain Thomas West, had expected to give the position filled by Richardson to his nephew". This doesn't really flow. Passing the exam and being promoted were separate issues. If he was promoted after passing the exam, this should be mentioned separately. If not, then perhaps mention the circumstances of Richardson filling a berth in lieu of West's nephew in chronological order?

• My fault. The position filled by Richardson was that of master's mate; his passing of the examination is a completely unrelated issue, and he was not promoted to lieutenant until later on. Have reworded.

• "successfully demanded his discharge from Alexander". Is it known who he demanded it of?

• He had what some might call an argument with West and demanded it then. Have added West's name here.

• "Hood took Richardson on as a master's mate". That is a major piece of patronage! Is anything further known of how Richardson came to be held so high in Hood's opinion?

• A mixture of sympathy for his situation on Alexander and a good word put in for him by Strachan, who had command of a frigate in the Channel at the time. Have elaborated.

• "on 11 October of that year". Suggest deleting "of that year".

• Done

• "repeating frigate". A footnote explanation perhaps?

• The explanation is provided afterwards, I'm not sure there is anything else that could be added to the description of the role.

The explanation, "tasked with ensuring all ships received signals sent out by Duncan", requires a reader to pick out the significance of "signal". If the fail to do this they are likely to have an image of Circe physically carrying written messages. Even if they pick up on "signal", will they associate this with 'flags', and then understand how these might be obscured by other ships, gun-smoke, the wind blowing them straight out towards or away from their intended recipient etc? It would also be helpful to give a reader some idea of what type of orders were being sent and to what type of ships. Or even why anyone might care about this.

Thank you for explaining. I've added an explanatory note that covers most of those points.

• "with which he served as artillery". I know what you mean, but maybe tweak the phraseology?

• Reworded

• "In June 1800 Kent sailed to serve in the Mediterranean Sea, and after an attempt to reinforce Cadiz was abandoned due to disease in the port in December, she subsequently supported Abercromby again, this time in going to Egypt to begin the British response to the French campaign in Egypt and Syria in 1801." This sentence seems a little complicated.

• Split up

• "was by this point first lieutenant of Kent". I thought that a "flag lieutenant" was the "first lieutenant". No?

• The flag lieutenant was part of the admiral's retinue on a flag ship. In a nutshell they were the admiral's aide, and were also in charge of his signals during battle. The first lieutenant was the senior lieutenant in a ship's company, and in most circumstances was the captain's second in command.

Apologies. I think I was confusing it with flag captain.

• "and as such he fought at the Battle of Abukir". Er, as what?

• Reworded - the Battle of Abukir was the aforementioned landing.

• "confirmed in his rank as a commander". I suspect that the nuances of "acting" and confirmed in" will be lost on many readers.

• Reworded

• "He subsequently fought at the Battle of Suriname on 5 May 1804, where the Dutch colony of Surinam was captured; Alligator assisted in bringing the 64th Regiment of Foot ashore; Richardson then went ashore himself and with a mixed force of sailors and soldiers attacked two Dutch forts from inland, subsequently using them to fire down upon New Amsterdam." Another busy sentence.

• Split up and reworded

• "In reward for this", Read "straight" this means in reward for being praised in despatches, I am assuming that was not the case.

• Reworded

• "Caesar became flagship to the now-Rear-Admiral Strachan, and Richardson his flag captain." Is it known if Caesar also had a first captain?

• She did not.

• "Strachan's squadron was tasked with hunting a French squadron under Admiral Jean-Baptiste Philibert Willaumez that had escaped from Brest, and after failing to catch that squadron in a chase that took them to Brazil and the Leeward Islands, Richardson served in Caesar in the blockading force off Rochefort until the squadron was sent to chase another French squadron in February 1808, this time of Rear-Admiral Zacharie Allemand, in the Mediterranean Sea." A big sentence.

• Split up

• "after failing to catch that squadron ... until the squadron was sent". Different squadrons I assume, but this is not clear.

• Reworded in the previous split

• "destroyed by the squadron against the shoreline". I am unsure how many readers will follow this.

• Reworded

• "Under him Richardson fought at the Battle of Les Sables-d'Olonne on 23 February 1809, where three French frigates were destroyed by the squadron against the shoreline, and at the Battle of the Basque Roads on 11 April of the same year, where the fleet's fireships assisted in destroying four ships of the line of the same fleet of the frigates." Separate sentences for each battle may work better. And is it possible to do something about "four ships of the line of the same fleet of the frigates"? ('from the same fleet as the ...'?)

• Split up and reworded

• "completed construction of his battery". Can one construct a battery? Perhaps one could construct earthworks or emplacements for a battery to shelter or deploy in or fire from?

• Reworded

• "While serving in the Channel ... off the Gironde". But the Gironde is nowhere near the Channel.

• Reworded

• "with his health in a "very dangerous state". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

• Not sure if I've done it in the correct fashion, but have included source

That's all I have for a first skim. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review and copy edit! I believe I have responded to all your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Second look

• "usually made up of long guns." So explicitly ruling carronades?

• Unless the whole armament was made up of carronades, e.g. with HMS Rainbow, carronades were not included in the count of guns at this stage. See for example HMS Triton; a 32-gun frigate that had eight carronades on top of that.

• "had expected to give the position filled by Richardson to his nephew, and ordered his officers to find a reason to remove Richardson from the ship to ensure this." This is still unclear to me. If the captain had expected to give the post of master's mate to his nephew, why didn't he just do it? And once Richardson was in post, surely it is too late to talk of "ensuring" the original plan works out? It already hasn't. (If you're following me.)

• Have reworded slightly, it was a mistake to word it as if the plan had been in place before/as Richardson assumed his post. Assume West required a good reason to either demote or remove Richardson from the crew; paperwork is king in the navy. The quote is "he made no scruple of telling the officers that he meant to get rid of him, by some device, in order to made room for a nephew".

• "having ninety-two casualties." Is the total crew known?

• 866, added.

• "but in December their plan". Who are the "they" referred to in "their"?

• Reworded to more general "a plan", just a mistake by me

• "the 14-gun gun brig Teazer". Why is the link not to brig?

• Winfield, Marshall, and O'Byrne all refer to her specifically as a gun-brig.

• "with the wars over". Wars plural?

• Reworded to avoid saying "war(s)" too many times, removing the issue

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work. Supporting. Let me know when it is nominated at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA

• There are some MOS:SANDWICH issues in the Early career section. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Believe I've fixed these but please mention if not, my screen seems to squeeze articles a little differently to most people. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

HF - spt

Will review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 15:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just now getting to this; work got crazy for awhile.

• " and fought on land at the Battle of Callantsoog and the Vlieter Incident" - this in the lead implies he fought on land at the Vlieter Incident, but the body doesn't seem to make such a claim

• Removed "on land"

• "Soon after this Vestal was sent to China to convey Charles Allan Cathcart" - recommend glossing who Cathcart was. I would have assumed a politician based on the diplomatic role until I got to the aide-de-camp part

• Added. He was going to China in a political role, but was also a colonel in the army.

• " a small cottage and thirty-six acres of land and visited his relative" - provide a conversion into ha?

• Added.

• "and was the last to be completed." in Note 6 - is this truly relevant?

• No, trimmed note.

• "and a vice-admiral on 17 December 1847" - recommend specifying in the text the he attained vice-admiral of the white

• Done.

Sourcing looks generally okay; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review, support by Vami

I am satisfied that the sources used on the article are authoritative and reliable. ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

Mostly a few minor prose issues:

• Suggest tweaking the 2nd sentence of the lead to "Richardson's naval career began when he joined..."

• Done.

• In the early career section: Cathcart was heavily ill before he began the mission and his health declined more on... suggest: "Cathcart was already ill when he began the mission and his health declined further while on..."

• Done.

• In the early career section: British vessels in resistance to their attempts... suggest "British vessels during their attempts..."

• Done.

• In the early career section: They served in a number of rivers to assist Major-General... I'm not crazy with this wording. The solution will depend on what is in the sources, but assuming their work was in a transport role, I suggest something like "They were used to transport troops up a number of rivers in support of Major-General..."

• Made an attempt at rewording. No sources I have provide details on what the role actually was. Marshall says "employed for several months in boats sent up the different rivers to co-operate with the Malabar army under Sir Robert Abercrombie" and O'Byrne says "for several months employed in the boats in co-operating, up different rivers, with the army under Sir Robt. Abercrombie".

• Ok, shame we can't find out more, but I think it is a little better now. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the early career section: Richardson heard of the plan to either demote or remove him... previously only removing him has been mentioned.

• Removed.

• In May 1797, Richardson now being the first lieutenant of Circe, his ship was caught in the Nore Mutiny. something not quite right here; should that be "In May 1797, Richardson, now the first lieutenant of Circe, and his ship was caught in the Nore Mutiny?

• Reworded.

• Richardson was sent ashore with a division of seamen is division the best term to use here, I'm wondering if the casual reader may be think of Division (military). Perhaps contingent may be better?

• Done.

• Richardson as one of his aides de camp. link aide de camp.

• Linked in sentence beginning "Cathcart was already ill..."

• Whoops, missed that. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, for a naval officer, a lot of his actions were fought on land. Anyhoo, that's my review done. Zawed (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for your comments! I've responded to them above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks all good, I have added my support. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.