Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Action of 1 January 1800

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Action of 1 January 1800 edit

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)
Toolbox

A battle that occured during the Quasi-War and the War of Knives, two conflicts whose coverage is a bit lacking in content here on wikipedia. I hope to bring this to FAC if i can, and as such would enjoy having fellow editors review it in order to bring it up to A-class standards if it does not already meet those standards. Thanks! XavierGreen (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComments There's one DAB link (merchantmen); external links look good. More comments later, but I can't help wondering if there are more current sources that describe the action. Magic♪piano 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed the dab link, most modern sources give only a short summery of the events that occured. Allen is the standard text of the quasi war and is commonly cited in most modern works.XavierGreen (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the image was clipped from an online source, the file page should include the link. If not, more detailed publication information should be provided. Also, the artist field is blank; if it is unknown, say so.
    • More context (probably 1-2 sentences is sufficient) is needed on the state of the Haitian Revolution (which ought to be linked, since the War of Knives is a part of it) leading to the Rigaud-l'Ouverture split.
    • spelling consistency is needed for Rigaud and picaroon
    • It's probably worth mentioning in the aftermath that Experiment later captured a ship carrying Rigaud.
    • It's probably also worth mentioning that Maley learned after the fact how many men and barges Rigaud had available (I think I saw that in Allen).

-- Magic♪piano 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • in the infobox the strength range of "400-500" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
    • in the article you have a mixture of date formats, for example: "1 January 1800", then "January 1, 1800", but then also "October 1, 1800" and then "16 July 1800". These should all be the one format for consistency. As the title uses "1 January 1800", I'd suggest using that format;
    • in the References section, it is slightly out of alphabetical order, e.g. you have Soley before Maclay, but M comes before S in the alphabet;
    • in the References section, could OCLC numbers be added to the works that are too old for ISBNs (e.g Abbot, Cooper, Soley, Maclay). You can obtain these by going to here and searching by title: [1];
    • in the References section, the redlinks for the authors seem a bit jarring. Are you sure that they are all notable enough to deserve a possible article? If they are, it is fine to keep them, but if not I suggest perhaps removing them (this is just a suggestion and won't stand in the way of support). AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed Williams since he hasnt really published very much yet, Allen and Maclay are widely sources in wikipedia for multiple works though and redlins already exist for them on other pages so i have left them.XavierGreen (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my comments have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - some c/e questions to run by you for some feedback :)

  • "The battle was fought between an American convoy consisting of the United States naval schooner USS Experiment and four merchant vessels and a squadron of armed barges manned by Haitian picaroons." (section: Intro)
    • The way this is worded (especially with all the 'and's) makes it confusing what is on whose side. For example, the first time I read this, somehow I assumed that the merchant vessels were on the Haitian side. Of course, it was made clear to me how it actually was as I read on, but this might be a problem. Ideas on how to fix this? Maybe somehow we could put the word "Haitian" before "squadron"... ?
      • I reagranged the sentence (when I originally wrote it, it seemed aquard even to me).
        • Great work, it is perfectly clear now. Icy // ♫ 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A French aligned Haitian general, André Rigaud, had instructed his forces to attack all foreign shipping within their grasp. Thus the picaroons attacked the American convoy, capturing two of the schooners before retiring." (section: Intro)
    • No obvious problem here, but what do you think about combining sentences? Perhaps along the lines of "Instructed by French-aligned Haitian general André Rigaud to attack all foreign shipping within their grasp, the picaroons attacked the American convoy...." though that maybe a bit long and run-on-y. Ideas...?
      • Hmm combining them seems to make it a bit to big. I wouldn't mind, but the folks at FAR might once it gets to that stage. I'm not to sure what to do with this.XavierGreen (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I'll muse over it and get back to you if I have any ideas. Anyone else have ideas...? Icy // ♫ 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seeing the stranded convoy, the Haitian commander André Rigaud sent ten armed barges out to attack and seize the convoy." (section: Background)
    • No obvious problem here either, but this sentence strikes me as a bit redundant. First of all, you have established who Rigaud is, his status, and who he is working for in the introduction and in the first paragraph of "Background" so is there a specific reason to repeat his full name and the fact he is a Haitian commander? You also repeat "convoy" twice. Now, this is perfectly fine I guess, but you could replace the second "convoy" with, perhaps, "the ships" or something? (forgive me for being unclear...)
  • "Thus, when the Haitians attacked the American warship again it was well prepared to repulse any attempt at boarding her." (section: Battle)
    • Now there is some disagreement here. First you refer to Experiment as "it", then later in the same sentence "her". If you're going to use "her" then wouldn't it be better to replace "it" with "she", for the sake of consistency? If I'm being woefully ignorant of some sort of agreed-upon convention feel free to enlighten me.
  • "Leaving on the schooner Diane, he was captured when the Experiment intercepted her on 1 October 1800." (section: Aftermath)
    • OK, I'm just being unfairly picky and here. The way this sounds is awkward. So Rigaud was just ... "leaving"? Any reasons why he would be leaving? Given, this is not an integral part of of the subject matter of the article, but I feel like it wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific with your word choice also. Was he escaping, whatever? On his individual page it says that he was headed for France after a defeat by rival Toussaint Louverture. Now I'm not sure how precise that is, but it's a pretty general idea of what he was doing that we can start with.
      • One of his last strongholds was at Jacmel, once this fell to an assault by Toussaints forces (who had some assistance from an American bombardment) he was quickly defeated and had no choice but to flee haiti to save his skin. Wikipedia's article about him is rather poor, he had fled to Guadalope after leaving Haiti. After spending some time in Guadalope he then left for France on the Diane, was captured by the Experiment and taken to the American base at Saint Kitts. He later helped fight in Napoleons invasion of Haiti. I added some more information about him in the Aftermath section.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that is all I have as for questions go. I think it wouldn't hurt to find another c/e'r, who perhaps has a little bit more of an idea what he/she is doing (i.e. more familiar with subject area?) that I am. Either way, an interesting little read you have here. Good luck ~ Icy // ♫ 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Action_of_1_January_1800&oldid=381067309"