Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 24 April 2010 [1].

Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown edit

Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The companion article to Battle of Camperdown and in the same vein as Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile, this lists the ships and casualties suffered by the British and Dutch fleets during the naval Battle of Camperdown in 1797. All comments welcome, enjoy. Jackyd101 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Spithead and Nore mutinies" just link the whole thing rather than two links heading to the same article.
  • I can do, although I should note that in the next month or so I will be breaking them into separate articles.
  • You use Yarmouth in preference to Great Yarmouth. I'm guessing that back in 1797 that was how it was most commonly referred to?
  • All contemporary references use that term (I think the name became Great Yarmouth in the mid-19th Centry but I cannot be sure of that).
  • You refer twice to "the Texel" while the article about it states it's an island and municipality. Why, then, "the Texel" and not just "Texel"?
  • This is tricky: the name of the island is Texel, but the name of the anchorage behind the island is "The Texel" (as in "The Texel Channel", although it is never called that). I'm not sure what to do here - none of my sources spell this out as they assume prior knowledge, so I can't reference it.
  • "Dutch formed line" forgive my ignorance but is that grammatically incorrect or is it a sailing term, to form line?
  • "the van and rear of the" what's the van?
  • A naval term for "vanguard". I will wikilink it.
  • "Both sides suffered heavy casualties during the battle as both fleets had been trained to aim at the hulls of their opponents, maximising the damage to personnel.[8] Although both fleets fought hard, both were suffering from popular unrest at the time of the battle." "both" is used four times in two sentences so reads a little repetitively.
  • Why is "weak construction" a necessity for shallow waters? Is it related to the mass of the construction?
  • "The Dutch did however have the advantage of weight of shot, especially when their well-armed frigates and brigs are included" change of tense here.
  • I'll change this for clarity, although in fact I think it is technically correct: The Dutch did have the advantage in the past, but it is when the frigates and brigs are included statistically. I'll change it though.
  • I decided to include the word "statistically" here rather than change the tense. Is this OK?
  • You link line to line of battle towards the end of the lead, is that the same line that I noted above?
  • Yep, I'll move the link.
  • Per WP:ACCESS you need a symbol as well as a colour to denote a particular property.
  • I've done this, although I am actually a bit reluctant to use colours or symbols to denote the captured ships as it oversimplifies what was sometimes quite a complex process (hence the notes section, which is severely foreshortened itself). I was told at another FLC that this was standard however - what are your thoughts?
  • I'm not sure that captured ships need that notation at all, I think the notes suffice. It's really a matter of taste. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1997 [1900]) vs (2000) [1997].
  • "Batsford Ltd.." spare full stop.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replied to several of you points. Those I haven't replied to I will address directly in the article this evening. Thank you very much for your review and comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, except those noted above. Thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very interesting work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: looks fine to me, I couldn't find anything to pick fault with. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is a very unique list, and really interesting to read. There's nothing wrong with it. Great work! --haha169 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good to me. -MBK004 08:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A big thankyou to everyone who gave their support to this article and offered their comments. It was all much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 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_list_candidates/Order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_Camperdown/archive1&oldid=358131872"