Wikipedia:Peer review/Spanish ship Fenix (1749)/archive1

Spanish ship Fenix (1749) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating as a WP:Good article. I've worked on the article a long time, since it was a stub, and made a lot of edits but feel like I'm now going round in circles. I think it's nearly there, it just needs a bit of a polish. All and any comments are welcome though. Thanks, Ykraps (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

G'day, I'm sorry that this has taken so long to get a review. I think this is because the bot that normally lists peer reviews is down. I have now manually added this to the history subpage, so it should show on the main peer review page, where it will hopefully gain some more attention. Anyway, I took a quick look and have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the References, is there an OCLC number for the The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume I, 1797–1799 work? For books that don't have ISBNs, an OCLC number can usually be found at www.worldcat.org
I searched for an OCLC number but couldn't find one but I now see that the dates in the reference are for Volume II. Dates changed to 1793-1796 and OCLC number added. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, "Medals of the British Navy and how they were won": this should probably use title case capitalisation: "Medals of the British Navy and How They Were Won"
Agreed. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the Reference list should probably be sorted alphabetically by author's surnames, hence Richard, Woodman is out of sequence
Well spotted. And the first and last names were reversed. Done, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
missing full stop: "The French had in fact passed close by in thick fog, two days previous on 17 May"
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistent: "beam of 52 feet 11.75 inches" (in the body of the article) v. "53 ft 3¾ in (16.2 m)" (in the infobox)
I don't have Lavery's book so I've changed to figures quoted in Winfield.--Ykraps (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistent: "hold of 22 feet 1.75 inches (6.8 m)" (in the body of the article) v. "22 ft 4 in (6.8 m)" (in the infobox)
As above.--Ykraps (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Spanish Armament and the outbreak of war" --> "Spanish armament and the outbreak of war" (per WP:Section caps)
I understood "Spanish Armament" to be a proper noun, hence the capitals. I've had a look at Google Books and use of capitals is a bit mixed so I'm not sure now. I'll change to a lower case a for the time being.--Ykraps (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that's probably all I can add right now as it is late here and time for bed. Thanks for your efforts with the article. Sorry my comments aren't very in depth, but ships aren't my forte. I've advertised this peer review on the main Milhist page and the Ships page, so hopefully it will get some attention now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and help with getting a wider audience. I was considering shutting the review a few days ago, because it hadn't garnered any interest.--Ykraps (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Pinging a few of Milhist's resident ship experts. @Parsecboy, Sturmvogel 66, and The ed17: If you chaps are free, would you mind offering a review on this one? Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One glaring issue to me is the fact that we have essentially no information about the ship's Spanish service. And the one section on the ship's Spanish service is mostly written from the British perspective. The section on Cape St. Vincent barely mentions Fenix at all.
Well I can't disagree with you there but unfortunately the only sources I have access to are either American or British, and both tend to look at things from the British perspective. I did look for Spanish sources but couldn't find any; there is no corresponding article on the Spanish Wikipedia [[1]] for example but even if there was, me Espanol es no bueno! Fenix is mentioned twice, once when she is attacked by Defence and again when she strikes to Bienfaisant so not a lot no, but again, sources are sparse. I have included details about the battle because I am usually asked to, when I've put other articles up for various reviews but I guess it could be pared back, if you think it's too much.--Ykraps (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is primarily from the British period, shouldn't the article be titled HMS Gibraltar?
The article was already named as such when I found it.[[2]] I was in two minds about requesting a move. I think the naming conventions refer to "significant careers" and I thought 31 years in the Spanish navy was significant and left it as it was. I don't feel strongly either way though.--Ykraps (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A general point: a number of ships are introduced but aren't described. A rule of thumb I (and others like Sturm) follow is to always mention the ship type on the first occurrence of a ship's name.
Okay, I didn't think it necessary when the ships are linked, but I'm happy to go along with the style.--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point: you have The Siege Cuddalore" linked.
Do you mean, it ought to read "The Siege of Cuddalore"?--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might convert the distance given in leagues. It's not a common unit of measure and nautical miles would be more readily understood.
I can't find any style guidance on this so I have converted to nautical miles simply because the calculation is easier. I tend to assume that distances at sea are nautical miles but if that's not the norm, let me know.--Ykraps (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Warren’s squadron was called upon to relieve the British garrison at Porto Ferrajo; under siege since the beginning of May 1801.[59] The arrival of the British ships on 1 August, caused the two French frigates blockading the port to retreat to Leghorn.[60] The two frigates were later brought to action on 2 September. Pomone, Phoenix and Minerve recaptured Succès and destroyed Bravoure after she had run aground." - this is unclear, in part due to the lack of introducing vessels as mentioned above. Is Succès the same vessel as HMS Success (1781)? Make this clear.
There is a footnote explaining this but I guess it could be better written.--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think now--Ykraps (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Comprising Renown, Gibraltar, Dragon, Alexander, Généreux, Stately, of the line, Pomone and Pearl frigates, and brig-sloop Vincejo;" - need a verb here or else reword to lose the semi-colon.
I have put details of the squadron in a footnote to make this clearer.--Ykraps (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When war broke out again in May 1803," - between whom? Not all readers will be experts on the Napoleonic Wars ;)
There are links to both the Napoleonic Wars and the Treaty of Amiens but I guess it doesn't hurt to mention belligerents.--Ykraps (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When Captain John Halliday assumed command..." - of what, Gibraltar?Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I have clarified this.--Ykraps (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, thanks for your comments. I hope I have understood them correctly.--Ykraps (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Hey Ykraps, nice article so far. A few thoughts:

It should probably be titled under HMS Gibraltar. :-)
Parsecboy made the same point. The guidelines talk about significant careers and Fenix had a significant career in the Spanish navy, although very little of it features in the article. I don't feel strongly either way but I will log a move request shortly.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there nothing on Fenix's pre-1780 career? Was it just laid up in ordinary?
This is something I'm working on now but I'm struggling to find reliable sources. The Spanish article says that after her construction in Havanna, she sailed for Cadiz and from there undertook a number of missions in the Straits and the Med. It doesn't elaborate except to say that Fenix was part of a squadron of ten ships of the line sent to collect King Carlos III from Naples in 1759. She was laid up for a long time at the Arsenal de la Carraca from 1764-1769 and prior to her capture in January 1780, she was serving in the Med. However, the citations don't seem to support this. But I may be struggling because my Spanish is pretty poor.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some reliable Spanish sources and added all I can reference. I have had a Spaniard look at it and she is sanquine my translation is accurate.--Ykraps (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there too much detail of the battle of Cape St Vincent? It brings in other ships that aren't mentioned elsewhere, so I wonder if it could be shortened to focus on Fenix's role in the battle.
Parsecboy also made this point. As I currently have nothing else to add, focussing on Gibraltar's role would shorten the section to a couple of lines. I will give this some more thought and hopefully I'll soon have a bit more to add.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a good go at shortening this section. I find reviewers differ about how much background is needed to place the ship's role in context so it's not an easy thing to get right but see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following the outbreak of war between the Dutch Republic and Britain in December 1780, orders were sent from London to seize the island - orders were sent to who? Also, when did Gibraltar join Rodney's squadron? (I assume? The ship isn't mentioned there)
The source doesn't say. Presumably it came from the governments' hastily convened war cabinet, via The Admiralty. London covers both.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't read your comments properly. Rodney received the orders and I have now made this clear. I presume that, as Commander-in-Chief of land forces, that Lieutenant-General Sir John Vaughan would have been given the same orders but this is not clear in the source. Rodney, as C-in-C of the Leeward Islands Station was admiral of the fleet so Gibraltar would have been under Rodney since arriving there towards the end of 1780. I will have a think as to how I can clarify that.--Ykraps (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's as far as I was able to get tonight. Overall, the article needs a pretty good copyedit. Might I suggest contacting WP:GOCE? Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17, Thanks for your comments. I haven't been ignoring them, I've just been rather busy with work commitments.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]