Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/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 not promoted by Karanacs 13:22, 5 October 2010 [1].

---

HMS Speedy (1782)

HMS Speedy (1782) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive2

Nominator(s): Benea (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

One of a large number of small cruisers active during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Speedy went on to have a more charmed life than most. She served under a number of notable commanders, fought on many occasions against heavy odds, and was almost always triumphant. This article has progressed through the quality ratings, recently passing an A-class review, and I believe satisfies FA criteria. Benea (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - no dabs or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Three queries/observations:

1. I'm a little confused as to how the article can be comprehensive, when the class article is a redlink still. See HMS Calliope (1884) for an exemplary FA that might serve as a sample for how to write this one, with design text included in the class article.
2. Was Dank consulted on this nom?
3. We've had a trend lately of 15 to 20 percent of FAC noms being ships, and there are currently six up, yet they are getting little independent (non-ship editor) review. This is concerning me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I never need to be consulted on noms, and in particular, I didn't do any significant work on this one. I tend to make a lot of little edits so that I can leave copyediting notes in the edit summaries, mostly to draw in other copyeditors and spark discussion. I don't have a feel for pre-20th-century ship articles, and stuff may be missing, but it's got more charm and less technical detail than some of the other ship articles. Hopefully this one can attract some reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy for your comments, but I confess I don't understand what you are driving at? 1: The class article is no longer a redlink. 2: I didn't know consulting Dank was a requisite for featured article nominations. He was good enough to do some copyediting for the A-class review and I assumed he would be aware of the nom, and welcome to help out or not entirely as he saw fit. Is there anything you feel he would be able to do that I would not with regards to this article and review? 3. I have no connection with any of these previous articles, which I assume are all to do with the current battleship article project. Are you saying the concern is too many ship articles or too few reviewers? Would you rather ship articles not be nominated at FA review? Benea (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Sandy was saying that it's polite to ask people who have done a lot of work on an article if they see anything else that needs doing before FAC and if they want to co-nom. I didn't and don't; I only had a lot of copyediting edits to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. Not too experienced with FA procedure, I thought he was saying I'd missed a step somewhere. Sorry if I violated any etiquette, it was purely unintentional. Benea (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Colledge is in the references, but isn't cited, should be in a "further reading" section instead.
• Same for Lyon and Vale.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Colledge is cited, Lyon replaced by Winfield, and Vale removed. Benea (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose 1b by Kirk

I'll repeat my comment from the talk page: the sections Cochrane, Speedy and Gamo and Later actions and capture neatly summarize the plot of the book Master and Commander in the Aubrey–Maturin series of novels by Patrick O'Brian, with Jack Aubrey as Cochrane and Sophie as Speedy; you can use Sea of Words - Google Books version as a source. The novel Hornblower and the Hotspur also features a ship (HMS Hotspur) very similar to the Speedy and similar encounters and clear parallels between the main character and Cochrane (I don't have a source handy for this comparison). All popular culture sections are problematic but probably this is an example where it would be helpful for the reader and I don't think those two are the only examples of Speedy in Fiction, just the ones I know about. I don't see this article as being comprehensive without recognizing the (arguably more famous) fictional representation(s). Kirk (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, p. 148 in Sea of Words (at the given link) says: In Cochrane's "account of his 1800–1801 cruise of the Speedy (the inspiration for O'Brian's Sophie), he flies a Danish flag and claims to have the plague on board to escape a superior foe, he floats a raft with a light at night to deceive a pursuer, and before attempting to board the much stronger El Gammo (the Spanish Xebec Frigate that is O'Brian's Cacafuego), he has his men blacken their faces to intimidate the enemy." (Btw, anyone have a WP:COPYRIGHT problem with quotes of one sentence or less to support a point made at FAC?) - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have put in a brief note about O'Brian and Forester's use of events from Speedy's career as plots for their books. Note however that they were drawn from Cochrane's exploits, rather than meant to be about Speedy, and Geoff Hunt makes the point that O'Brian's vessel matches Speedy only in terms of her spar measurements, and indeed that she corresponds to no known actual ship of the period. Benea (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks better; I'd like to see that sentence in the article (I'd put it in as a note, but I'll leave that up to you) and I'll remove my objection. Also, sorry about the confusion but I did review the Hotspur sources and its not the Speedy so you can remove that part of the sentence. Good article! Kirk (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped in Hunt's brief commentary on the fictional vs the real. Hope this satisfies. Benea (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

I write as a non-ship specialist, so read the following minor points with that lack of background in mind:

Design and Construction:

• "Speedy was one of a two-ship class of brigs built..." The "two-ship class" read really oddly to me - I know what it means, but it didn't feel like natural English.

• I've reworded this a bit. Ship classes in this period were not quite the same as they are presently, saying they were built to the same design is a trifle more accurate anyway.

French Revolutionary Wars:

• "Once Diadem had been repaired Sutherland returned to Genoa, and was surprised to discover Speedy still there patrolling the port, not once having left her task. While single-handedly maintaining the blockade, she had even captured several vessels." - I'm probably misunderstanding, but isn't the idea of a blockade to deter or stop vessels trading with a port? Or were they enemy warships?

• The implication is that such a small ship as Speedy, operating in such bad weather as to force the larger ships from their station, was not expected to have remained on station in the gales, let alone chase down, stop and search other vessels without the support of the rest of the squadron. I've removed the 'even' from the sentence though.

• "the French hurried back to Gourjean roadstead, taking Speedy and the captured British crew with them" - Gourjean roadstead is red linked, and I'm not sure it is a place or a port or...? The sentence earlier said the French fleet came from Toulon.

• A roadstead is a sheltered area of water where ships can anchor, Gourjean roads lie off the south coast of France outside of Toulon. I suppose it could be made into a sub-stub, or would you be able to suggest a different wording?

Could you go for the "Gourjean roadstead outside Toulon?"

French Service and Recapture:

• "Speedy was taken into French service but enjoyed only a brief time sailing under the French flag" - surely such a patriotic vessel would have not have enjoyed French service at all! :)

• Quite so, have changed to 'spent only'.

Cochrane:

• "On 11 May a strange sail was spotted capturing one of the ships in the convoy, at which Cochrane chased and forced her to surrender." "a strange sail" - I'd sort of expect this to be a "a strange ship"?

• Changed.

French and Papal career:

• It seemed a bit odd to talk about a "diplomatic war", and then note that the French gave their enemy a gift of a ship; is there any word other than "war" you could use?

• It's a phrase used in the sources, but I've gone with 'a pawn in Napoleon's efforts at diplomacy' instead.

I enjoyed the article, incidentally, especially the complaints by Cochrane about the size of the ship! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made some alterations in line with your comments, please let me know if they address your queries. Best, Benea (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. A suggestion on the roadstead noted above. Best of luck with the rest of the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've altered it per your suggestion, thanks very much! Benea (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm all for getting into the measurements for a time period or specific field, but is there a chance we could convert the old measurements present in the construction section to include a metric/standard measurement? People in general have a better grasp of the latter than the former, and it would probably help article comprehension. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The only thing I think you can be referring to is the use of tons burthen, an estimation of the tonnage known as the Builder's Old Measurement? No, this would be inappropriate in this case, tonnage is a notional rather than a physical value. A discussion where metric conversions of tons buthern was firmly deprecated can be found here for reference. Benea (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support I'd feel better about having the metric units and the standard units in the article, but I am not going to oppose the article's promotion on such a trivial matter. All the important criteria are met, and in the end that is all that really matters at this level. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Close Closer to Support This is a great little article about a great little ship and the kind of think I'd like to see on the main page. I have a few issues but they're pretty picky (even by my standards!). I've refrained from too much editing however, in case I'm missing something.

Lead: Fought actions with or against the Spanish? I'd use against personally.

Changed

Lead: Leaps from successful history to being broken up (and from 1798 to 1807) very quickly . Could this be delicately expanded? What happened to her after the French recaptured her?

I've added some dates. 1798-1801 is Brenton and Cochrane's time in her, with the exception of the Gamo action she was mostly involved in battling gunboats, cutting out merchants, making shore landings, etc. Small beer in the scale of naval warfare at the time, and I'm not sure if any one of her numerous little actions ought to be expanded for the lead, as they are about equal for significance. Could you suggest examples of what you would like to see expanded? The French gave her quickly away to the papal navy in 1802. The papal navy sits out the Napoleonic Wars, and indeed practically every war of the period, as spectators, and there is no record of Speedy, or San Pietro as she was named by then, participating in military or political events.

The simple expansion you've made to the final sentence is perfect. Sorry, I should probably have clarified that it was more of a flow and prose thing than hard facts. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead: There's a lot of commas....

If you want to give this a look Dank you're welcome to, I bow to your copyediting skills, and I haven't got time at the moment for more than a cursory glance. Otherwise I will take a look in the next few days.

Sorted. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Design: Could the first 2 sentences be rewritten a bit to avoid writing design and King's name twice?

I've reworded this slightly

Sorted Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Design: Its interesting that she was coppered after she was launched and not during her construction. Anyway, I might include a brief summary of what coppering was to avoid actually needing to follow the link to understand the sentence.

I've reworded this slightly. It was common practice for coppering to be carried out this way, and in the Royal Dockyards rather than the civilian contractor's, along with the rest of the fitting out.

Didn't realise that (seems counter productive to launch a ship and then plate the hull). Sentance is better now anyway. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Early Career: Ditto Humber, for those not familiar with the estuary.

Added 'estuary', does this work?

Indeed. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

French Wars: What was Pierre Martin's rank at the time?

Rear-Admiral

Sorted. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

French Service: Do we know what Shore Battery it was?

No name is given, other than it occurred during a cruise off Oneglia.

No problems then, just wondered. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

French and Papal career: Is there any way Speedy's legacy in fiction could be expanded a little - perhaps enough to justify a separate section? That the adventurous career of the ship bears a close resembelance to the fictional story deserves a little bit more detail I think (within reason).

I'm wary about expanding this too far as O'Brian simply lifts the entirety of Cochrane's service, and uses it for his fictional Aubrey. Everything from Aubrey's unsuccessful trialling his 12 pounders and finding the ship can't take them, borrowing a spar from Genereux, his recapture of a merchant from his first convoy after it had been taken by a galley, his cruises against privateers, his impersonation of a Danish ship and officers, the capture of Gamo (though she is renamed Cacafuego in the book), his attack on the merchant ships and burning them in harbour, the flight from Linois and eventual surrender, the fact he dines with Christy-Pallière who refuses to take his sword, and that he watches the Battle of Algeciras Bay from the Dessaix. The details of the set piece of the book (and Cochrane's career), the capture of the Gamo/Cacafuego, are also identical. The wearing of ship, the slipping under the stern, the boarding with blackened faces, the places they board from, the bluff with the call to the doctor for more men, the hauling down of the colours to dishearten the Spanish, etc. I have thought long and hard about this, and other than pointing out the fact that they are the same, it seems to me that a more detailed explanation must simply repeat the previous section. O'Brian used other naval episodes from history for his later books, and good and featured articles on those (The Mauritius Command-Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811) (HMS Surprise (novel)-Battle of Pulo Aura) note the fictional interpretations in a sentence or so. I'm very open if you have specific ideas about how you'd like this to expressed in the article though?

Perhaps not an entire section then, but just some of the facts you've mentioned above are fascinating. Could you include a sentence or two about the fact that O'Brian pretty much duplicated Speedy's career, so that its clear from this article as well as the others you list above. Maybe something like "Although the ship described by O'Brian matches Speedy only in terms of her spar dimensions, the adventures of his fictional captain Aubrey borrow heavily from the true life exploits of HMS Speedy / Captain Cochrane's service on Speedy, including example 1 and example 2." Assuming its reference-able of course. Perhaps its just the wording, but the fact that the fictional adventures are based on real service doesn't really come across that strongly in the first sentence of the relevant paragraph. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems perfectly sensible, I've expanded this a little with a couple of examples, based on Parrill's book about the navy of the period in fiction.

Otherwise, looks good. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• PS I've got to say that I involuntarily laughed out loud when I read that Imperieuse scuttled itself - I had cartoon like visions of a ship growing arms, reaching into its bowels and shattering its own hull! I was bold enough to change that. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I learn so much from you guys. Thanks Steve. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I've made some changes, or expressed my thoughts on most of your comments. I'll be away for a couple of days, so I might not be able to make changes or replies straight away. Let me know what you think though and I'll get back to them as soon as I can. Benea (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I broke up a couple of sentences in the lead (3 fewer commas now, hope that helps) and made a few tweaks. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Try as I might I can't find anything else to complain about. Good work guys, I really like this article. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I may be being extremely dense, but what is the "Annual Biography and Obituary"? I can't find a full citation for it anywhere.
  • Can't think how this was missed, but I've added it now.
• In the lead, "Built during the last years of the American War of Independence". Although technically true, as far as I can see she had nothing to do with the Revolution. As there will always be some people who don't know the dates of the Revolution, wouldn't it just be more straightforward to just give the actual year?
  • I'd be reluctant to change this. She was ordered and built during them with the intention to serve in them, so in a sense they were the reason for her creation, her genesis. Her construction spanned two years so it would be inaccurate to name a specific year, and somewhat clumsy to give a range, which would also lack the added context the war then raging gives.
    • OK. Do you have a source that specifically says she was constructed for use in the war? If so, what would you think of adding a quick sentence to the Design and construction section - something along the lines of "she was originally meant for service in the war, but never saw battle before the war was over" (but obviously more formal and, you know, grammatical!).
• Design and construction, "This is roughly equivalent to £403 thousand in present day terms.". Is there a reason this isn't written as "£403,000"? To me, the latter format is more readable (but that could just be me!).
  • I'll field this MOS question: if it were 100K, I'd be comfortable writing "one hundred thousand pounds", per this from WP:ORDINAL: "When expressing large approximate quantities, it is preferable to write them spelled out, or partly in figures and part as a spelled‑out named number; e.g. one hundred thousand troops may be preferable to 100,000 troops when the size of the force is not known exactly; write Japan has the world's tenth largest population, with about 128 million people ..." But I'm not sure about "four hundred and three thousand pounds"; that's quite a mouthful. I'm guessing whoever wrote it as given was trying to follow MOSNUM (either because they read MOSNUM or because they've seen other people do it that way). TLDR version: I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I have come across this before, and my preference would be to write £403,000. The template however will not allow this, and removing the template means that it the sum will no longer be kept up to date, £403,000 would be the sum in 2010, but not perhaps in 2020. Unless the template coding can be changed to allow this rendering, I'm not sure what can be done.
      • Ah, I should have checked the edit screen; what I said applies to the people who did the template, then. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Oops, I didn't think to check the edit screen either. Oh well, then. Perhaps a note to the template people would be nice, though.
• Later actions and capture, "where her captain, Christy-Pallière, refused to accept his sword in recognition of Cochrane's achievements." This may just be because I don't know that much about ships, but this sentence is confusing. Did he refuse to accept the sword and in so doing refuse to recognize Cochrane's accomplishments, or did he recognize the accomplishments and because of this refuse to accept the sword?
  • The latter interpretation is the correct one, I've reworded this slightly to try to make it clearer.

I've made one minor tweak - please check. When the above issues are resolved, I look forward to supporting - overall, it's very nicely written! Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best to address or otherwise reply to these issues, let me know what you think. Best, Benea (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I've changed to a support, as the one outstanding issue is quite minor. Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Image issue: just File:HMS Speedy.jpg. What source verifies this to be a 19th century painting that is out of copyright? A 1899 painting is still 19th century, and a 20-year-old who painted it then could quite believably live to 1945, which would mean he has not passed away more than 70 years ago. The source never identified the date or author of this watercolour. Under UK copyright law, any unpublished art that has no identifiable authorship is copyrighted until 31 Dec 2039 or 70 years after its first public exhibition (if exhibited after 1 Jan 1969); see this leaflet from the National Archives. This work of art is likely still copyrighted in its country of origin (UK); please either provide proof of publishing (authorised distribution of copies to the public) or identify its author. Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang is right, though the hypothetical is a bit of a stretch: the painting is of an event in 1800, and is likely to have been painted in the first half of the 19th century: the likelihood of its creator having died less than 70 years ago is close to nil. Has anyone emailed the National Maritime Museum to ask: is the author of the picture known; is its date of creation known; is it an original painting or a reproduction (egs. an engraving, or from a book); and if it is an anonymous original, when was it first displayed by the museum (or when was it acquired by them)? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: A very enjoyable and readable article. I don't know much about ships in general, but I have a passing knowledge of the period. Just a few minor queries.

• In design and construction, I find "She was armed with 14 4-pounders and 12 ½-pdr swivel guns", a little hard to read with so many numbers. Would it be possible to have "four-pounder" and "quarter-pounder", or is this a big no-no in naval articles? (forgive my ignorance!)
  • To my knowledge it might be more of a no-no to write the 4 in four pounder, so I've tried fourteen 4-pounders instead. Does this work? Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Any more details of her early career out of Humber? What kind of role did she perform?
• Any details of the vessels she captured while blockading Genoa on her own? Presumably they were quite small.
• When Eyre took over, was he still with Sutherland while part of the siege of Bastia?
• "Having silenced the shore battery..." How?
• "...and then re-floated and sailed the four merchant vessels they had been escorting, which had run themselves aground to avoid capture, back out to sea under heavy musket fire from the beach." This seems like an afterthought. Would it be better to mention this before the capture of the French ships?
• What happened to Elphinstone; i.e. why did Dowman take over?
• Just a personal thing: it seems a little disjointed to not mention Dowman protecting trade out of Oporto until saying he was given a letter of thanks. Could it be mentioned what roles Speedy performed under Dowman? But not a problem at all.
• "After Defender headed out to sea, Speedy ran in and anchored within 30 yards of the middle ship." Isn't this a little ... reckless?? If so, is it worth a comment?
• Do we know the name of the other merchant ship attacked by the gunboats off Algeciras? It may make that part slightly easier to follow.
• I feel the part about the Intrepide is slightly too dramatic; rather than "a strange ship", why not simply say "the 6-gun privateer Interpide"? Or "a ship which emerged/turned out to be..." Feel free to disagree!
• "He also found a Dane..." Repetition of found in this sentence, and I'd prefer simply "appointed a Dane as quartermaster".
• "...on 22 January he was sailing with a convoy of Danish merchantmen under a Danish flag, pretending to escort them." Did the convoy approve of this? Was this a common practice at the time? And was Denmark neutral?
  • Technically yes, although the British fleet engaged the Danes the following year in the Battle of Copenhagen. Prior to that the Danes were part of a League of Armed Neutrality and did indeed require armed escorts on occasion. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Presumably Gamo is the Spanish frigate that Cochrane was expecting?
• One other minor point, following discussion above. From memory (I don't have the books available), several of Hornblower's exploits sound similar to Speedy's history. Can't remember if it was in the Hotspur or not. I don't know if there is any mileage in this, and I'm not well-informed enough to have a definite opinion!

No other problems I noticed, and I'll support when these points are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Any updates on the image? Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note, Benea hasn't edited since September 20. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk page: I'm sorry, I have no idea how I'd even begin to answer User:Sarastro1's 15 questions. It's not my "period", and I don't have any of the books. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at two points, but I can't help with much else I'm afraid. Benea did say he'd be away when responding to my own comments, but that was apparently only for a few days... Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.