Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Action of 9 February 1799/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by Karanacs 23:43, 10 August 2010 [1].

Action of 9 February 1799 edit

Action of 9 February 1799 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel this article meets the requirements of Featured Article status and wish to improve wikipedia's coverage of the Quasi-War. This battle was the first in the Quasi-War and the first victory in combat in the history of the US Navy.XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources comment: Sources look OK, no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, I think the article needs some more polish. Here are examples from just the "Background" section, but entire article would benefit from a copyedit. Sasata (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the outbreak of an undeclared war with France in 1798…" American naval history is not a strong point for me. I need the basic question answered: what were they fighting about?
    • French privateering depredations against american shipping, i have expanded the first sentence of the background a bit to clarify this.XavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… sending four naval squadrons to the Caribbean in order to seize French shipping and stop French letters of marque from attacking American vessels." Is a letters of marque a legal document? I don't understand how it could attack a vessel?
    • Letter of Marque has two meanings derived from the same concept. Letter of Marque can either refer to the state issued documents issued to privateers that allow them to attack shipping of certain nationalities, or it can refer to the vessels carrying those documents. In otherwords in the sense used in the article Letter of Marque is simply a synonym for privateer.XavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's a brig? a revenue cutter?
    • I wiki linked them. A brig is a type of sailing vessel, and a revenue cutter is a cutter (another type of sailing vessel) that was used for customs collection purposes by the United States Revenue Cutter Service in the 17 and 1800'sXavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opposing Truxtun were a number of privateers" What's a privateer? How many is "a number"?
    • I linked privateer. A privateer is a privately armed vessel given permission by its mother government to attack the shipping of certain nations. The number of privateers in the area was constently changing, there are no reliable figures to my knowledge describing how many privateers were in Truxton's area of responsibility during his flotillas deployment there.XavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link throwing weight
  • There seems to be some inconsistency on the usage of hypens, e.g.: 20-gun USS Baltimore vs. 32 gun Sémillante-class frigate. Does "…ten 12 pounders" need a hyphen after the 12? How about "Barreaut's 950 ton ship"? I'm not familiar with WP:Ships recommended usage in these situations.
    • I belive i have fixed the hypens to ships standards.XavierGreen (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was armed with 40 cannon." cannons?
Cannon is one of those words that has a plural that is the same as the singular. It doesn't always appear that way, but it is correct (or at least acceptable) to use 'cannon' when speaking of more than one cannon.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something new every day; thanks. Sasata (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please ensure that these expansions are correct: [2] and [3]. The book title alone is not sufficient. Supplement with page numbers, if available. Otherwise, no image issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are correct, and i added the page numbers.XavierGreen (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.Comments This still needs a bit more work I think. A few examples, and I stress these are only examples, of the kind of things I'm talking about.
  • "On her next cruise Constellation fought another frigate duel against the La Vengeance, though she would escape the fate L'Insurgente had suffered." Another duel against La Vengeance? When had they fought before? Why "the La Vengeance? "La" is the French for "the", so this is saying "the The Vengeance. It's not even consistent, as it doesn't say "the L'Insurgent". It's also ambiguous; which ship escaped the fate of L'Insurgente? Constellation or La Vengeance?
La Vengeance is the name of the ship so one would say the La Vengeance just as one would say the Constellation. The actually names of the ships are listed, La Vengeance and L'Insurgente were the exact names of the vessels as commisioned by the french navy. Another duel as in the second duel Constellation had fought against a frigate. After defeating L'Insurgente, Constellation engaged another frigate (the La'Vengeance) several months later but that frigate escaped capture while L'Insurgente was siezed by the americans and commisioned as USS Insurgent.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems strange to me to say "the La Vengeance", but more importantly the article is in any case not consistent. For instance, the image caption in the Background section says "A diagram of Constellation's engagement with L'Insurgente". By your logic that ought to be "A diagram of Constellation's engagement with the L'Insurgente" ought it not? Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search of google books shows both styles being used in a variety of works.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, but this is one work, and the usage within it needs to be consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think ive managed to standardize it withing the text now.XavierGreen (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... however by nightfall it had become separated from the captured frigate in a squall." Elsewhere in the article it's "she".
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At noon on 9 February while cruising independently, Truxtun's men sighted a frigate off the coast of Nevis." How did Truxton's men manage to cruise independently? Independently of what?
Of her squadron, i change this to reflect that though in naval literature it is usually sufficent to say crusing independently i understand that someone not familiar with naval jargon would not understand this.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After again outmaneuvering the damaged L'Insurgente, Constellation crossed the frigate's bow a third time, but Barreaut had by now sustained massive damage. Attempts by Barreaut's crew to repair L'Insurgente's rigging were fruitless however ...". What is "however" supposed to be telling us here? How does it relate to what has gone before?
I removed it.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the United States government decided to go on the offensive by sending four naval squadrons to the Caribbean in order to seize French shipping and stop French letters of marque from attacking American vessels." Why "in order to" rather than just "to"? I know what a French letter is, but what on Earth is a "French letter of marque"?
I changed it to say with orders to. Letter of Marque is another word commonly used to describe a privateer. Letter of marque can refer both to the actual document itself and to the ships that carry them.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'd always seen ships under Letters of Marque referred to as privateers. I'd never seen the LoM used to describe the ship as well. Maybe if you just used privateer it would make more sense.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but then id be using privateer twice in the same sentence. Most of the sources im citing use letter of marque in the sense i am using it in as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 9 August 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_article_candidates/Action_of_9_February_1799/archive1&oldid=378294384"