Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Speedy (1782)

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 07:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Speedy (1782) edit

Nominator(s): Benea (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed GA review, and I believe it meets the necessary requirements. Benea (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support

No disamb links and no problems with external links but the images need alt text added

Added text

At her completion she had cost £4,200.7s.3d to build. Sadly I am old enough to be able to convert this but for younger readers it might be beneficial to convert into present money or round it off (its £4,200.36p).

I don't see much point in this, if the historical amount were to be converted, it should be into its modern equivalent, rather than to apply a decimal system that did not exist to a historical figure. Our featured article on a contemporary ship (HMS Endeavour) does not convert the sum.

- I've wikilinked the £, s and d for the benifit of those who are not familiar with the pre-1971 British currency system. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why she kept getting paid off in her early career ?

This was a common occurrence in peacetime for practically every type of warship, and usually happened with the change of commander. After fairly long or arduous commissions, the ship would be taken into the dockyard, the crew often dispersed among the other ships of the fleet, and usually a survey carried out. The ship was then laid up until such time that the Admiralty decided on a use for her, and any repairs or refits were carried out before the ship recommissioned under a new commander.

should Ship of the line be used to describe HMS Agamemnon ?

By this stage (the mid-1790s) the 64-gun ships were no longer considered ships of the line, as their armament was no longer sufficient to stand in the line of battle (at least that was the conventional wisdom). The 74 guns became the smallest rated ships that were considered suitable as 'ships of the line', and the 64s were gradually being phased out of the navy by this time.

I know what you mean by piece of plate but it does sound like broken crockery is there a link you could use ?

The closest I can think of is Silver (household).

I added some links you might want to check to ensure your happy with them --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can to address these issues. Best, Benea (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised an issue with the infobox on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"winning fame for herself": I won't fiddle with this because I see it as a "neutral tone" issue more than a matter for a copyeditor. The term "fame" is certainly more acceptable in articles set in the 18th century than the 20th, but I still think some reviewers may prefer terms like "distinction" (which you use), "honor", "honors", "commendations", etc. - Dank (push to talk)

Are you suggesting it be changed? Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not experienced enough with articles on 18th century ships to know yet. OTOH, neither are some of the reviewers you'll encounter here and at FAC, and I don't know how they'll respond ... so for now, do nothing, but have a few examples ready if necessary at FAC of articles that use similar language in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I don't claim any good feel for British English, please correct me if I get it wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing what MJ said, you may have trouble with "£4,200.7s.3d" at FAC, despite the fact that similar notation made it through another FAC. I'm not sure, but my reading of WP:$ is that "£" is fine at first occurrence for UK-specific articles, but not everyone will be expected to know "s" and "d". Linking them in the text as well as MJ's helpful links in the infobox might make a difference, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk)

A conversion can be added, ie that the sum was 'roughly equivalent to £549,300 in present day terms.' For some reason the template does not allow the figure to be expressed naturally as '£403,000' though. Would this help? Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the article, and have linked the £. s. d. in the article body. Feel free to remove it again if it looks problematic. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would help, and I think that would probably be okay (assuming we're preparing for FAC, this is certainly FAC-worthy). I guess my strategy at FAC, whenever possible, is to edit in a way that minimizes the chance that anyone will quote WP:MOSNUM for any reason ... it's better if those conversations just don't even get started. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get a ghit on Gourjean road (i.e. roadstead) as a small French gulf, but it's not on Wikipedia yet; I've red-linked it. - Dank (push to talk)
"she mistook Captain Thomas Fremantle's Inconstant ...": Who mistook? Can I assume "her captain" would work? - Dank (push to talk)

I've changed it to this in the article. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The British force boarded and carried both ships, and then brought off ...": sorry, I'm not following "carried" or "brought off". - Dank (push to talk)

I've reworded this to make it clearer. 'Carried' means to capture in this context, 'brought off' refers to the ships being re-floated and sailed away from the enemy. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Spanish ran in to a small sandy bay": if you meant "ran" as in, the wind was behind them, then I need to change it back and link it, but to avoid misunderstanding of "ran", I changed it to "sped". - Dank (push to talk)

No, the meaning here is not to do with one of speed, though the implication is that it happened quickly, but as you note, the question of wind direction. They ran in with the wind, rather than having to warp in, for example. I've changed it back, though I'm not sure what you would link it to though.Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience ... in retrospect, waking up to see someone made 52 edits to your excellent article might not have been the most clever way to begin a collaboration :) I should have taken the time to scan your other articles and get a sense that if you said "ran", you probably meant "ran". I look forward to learning a lot from you, as I have from Parsecboy, Sturmvogel_66 and others. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also ... I linked it, I use Sailing#Running but there may be other links that are better. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good link to me! Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed "Speedy ran" to "Speedy raced"; same point. - Dank (push to talk)

As above. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "cannonade" instead of "carronade"? - Dank (push to talk)

Works for me. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"increase the volatility of his new command": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk)

Cochrane tried to give Speedy a more powerful armament, to make her more of a threat to enemy shipping, more likely to triumph in combat, etc, by fitting her with more and larger guns. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would "armament" be acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"learned" sounds wrong to Brits and "learnt" sounds wrong to us (even uneducated and backwoodsy to some). I substituted "discovered"; hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be a significant issue then no I don't have a problem with it. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely optional how much you want to buy in to what I'm doing here; I'm trying to make the article transparent to Brits, Americans, and others ... especially Brits and Americans who might review it at FAC :) OTOH, I definitely don't want to dumb it down, remove all the nautical terms, or change your style to my style. I routinely ask the American editors to make changes so that the articles will be more accessible in Commonwealth countries; read any of the recent A-class articles and see if you agree that they don't sound "disagreeably American" to your ear (and if they do, tell me!). But the bottom line is that this is not my article, and the guidelines are clear that it's okay if language doesn't sound right to everyone in every country, so feel free to revert anything I do or tell me off. (I mean that; productive relationships between professional writers and professional copyeditors always involve some degree of irritation. It comes with the territory, and I don't mind.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look fine and helpful so far! Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion (feel free to revert): since "broadside(s)" means four different things, I'd like to add a link. I think the most helpful description for this article is Broadside#As a measurement, but that doesn't fit the first occurrence, so I rewrote the first occurrence and linked the second. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Spanish faltered at [the sight of sailors in black-face]": understood that the victors write the histories, and there's not a lot we can do other than go with our sources, but I generally distrust the parts of the accounts that talk about how the enemy trembled in the face of the mighty/scary/disguised/whatever heroes. I suspect the Spanish didn't do significantly more or less trembling than anyone else being run at with pointy swords. I made the edit; YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though writers emphasise the importance of inflicting confusion and surprise on the enemy, when some of the crew hesitate, so the effect spreads. The black faced boarders were to imitate the pirates and moorish corsairs the Spanish had centuries of experience with, and to confuse and dismay them. He followed this up with the attack from the waist, leaving the Spanish surrounded. It's probably too much detail for here, and I'm happy with the reword. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I get it. I have no objection to adding that, especially if there are sources that echo the same thing from the point of view of the Spanish crew. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta make a store run so I'll hurry this up. having "at the time the only person on Speedy" so close to "leaving only the ship's doctor aboard" may not be "tight" enough for FAC ... it might slide through but I like to edit defensively. However, I can't figure out what would be better. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but it seems to emphasise the important aspects of the action, firstly Cochrane's daring in taking practically his entire crew onto the enemy ship (where they were still outnumbered 6 to 1), and then his bravado at calling for 50 more men, when there was not a single man to spare. Both factors were crucial elements in the subsequent victory. If there are no suggestions, perhaps see if this becomes a problem later? Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think we should link "struck his colours"? I can't decide. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do to be honest, and have linked it here. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the bit in the last section but my French is pretty poor, someone check it please. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"burnt" is okay with me, "learnt" isn't ... inconsistent I know, but "learnt" ... ew. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. If forced to choose one ship article out of the last 20 to make into a movie, it would be this one, it's not even close. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion too. I'm not an A-class reviewer but the article is looking in pretty good shape now. No doubt it will be pushed on to FA before too long. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looks very good to me, I just have a couple of minor comments:

- there is quite a bit of whitespace in the French Revolutionary Wars section when I view the article due to the placement of the Cunningham image (this might just be my screen, though);
- some of the ISBNs are hyphenated, but others arent (these should be consistent);
- the titles in the References should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
- could OCLC numbers be added to the works without ISBNs? The Ralfe work can be found here, I think: [1]

AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these issues in the latest edit, though there is no whitespace that I can see. Benea (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 6 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.