Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Action of 9 February 1799

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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Action of 9 February 1799

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Action of 9 February 1799/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that the history of the Quasiwar is not adequately covered on wikipedia, as such i have been working on this article covering the first battle in the conflict for the past few weeks and think that it now meets A-Class standards. XavierGreen (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• no dabs, links are good (with link checker tool), alt text present. Will post comments tomorrow or Thursday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—The main issue is with the prose. The article is in need of a copyedit. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been copyedited by two previously uninvolved editors.XavierGreen (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Seconding JonCatalán and tending towards oppose without significant work.
• "While Truxtun was cruising independently in his flagship, the frigate USS Constellation, he met and engaged the French frigate L'Insurgente." Would read more easily as "While Truxtun was cruising independently in the frigate USS Constellation, his flagship, he met and engaged the French frigate L'Insurgente."

I dont see the problem with this sentence, but i changed it anyway since it sounds the same to me.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Chasing the French ship through a storm, Constellation was able to force L'Insurgente to surrender after a three hour battle." Was the three hour engagement after the chase through the storm? Was the it in the storm?

I changed the wording of the sentence to make it more clear. The storm started then briefly disapeted and then returned after the action was over.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise, I can't get beyond copyedit requests in the second and third sentences of the introduction. I recommend denominating for A and posting a request for a copyedit. Nom, denom, copyedit, nom works better all round than nom, fail, ?, nom. Doug (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Let's not play the game of someone pointing out bad prose or copy and only fixing what is pointed out. The article needs an independent copy edit preferably by someone who has never laid eyes on it previously.

It has been copy edited by two previously uninvolved editors.XavierGreen (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Adding some context to the article would help comprehensiveness. By the time Constellation put to sea, France had seized over 300 American merchant ships because of disagreements over the Jay Treaty. Relate at the end of the article that the captured Insurgent was lost at sea in 1800 and that Constellation later engaged La Vengeance but that particular ship escaped. Brad (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • I have done something of a copy edit on the article now, although I am neither a prose expert nor did I find the article to be as badly written in the first instance as some of the other reviewers. I have seen much worse pass ACR before which makes me wonder what the reasons are for such high standards being applied in this case...
  • In my opinion this is a good little article on an important event, it is well written, suitably researched and succinct. Although again I am no expert on the topic so I cannot with authority say that it covers everything but it looks comprehensive to me. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've just copy edited the article to convert some prose written in the passive voice to active voice. I think that the article is very comprehensive and well referenced and meets the A class criteria. The last sentence isn't cited at present, but this appears easy to do. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I added an appropriate citation.XavierGreen (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Just a couple of comments from me (happy to support once these are dealt with):
  • per Mos:time#Time of day the time format should be changed from using capital letters for "P.M." to lower case "p.m."
  • the final sentence in the battle section needs something to clarify what it means, e.g. "...was forced to strike his colors, indicating that he wished to surrender";
  • in the Aftermath section "comparatively huge number" seems a bit like hyperbole to me, perhaps "comparatively large number" would work better? — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed these three issues.XavierGreen (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.