Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Action of 9 February 1799

Action of 9 February 1799

This article covers the first battle of the Quasi-War. I am nominating this article for a peer review since i am thinking of nominating it for featured article status. Since it failed its last featured article review, yet i addressed most if not all of the comments the reviewers had made, I am wondering what further changes need to be made to the article so that it will pas the FAR. Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

hchc2009

There are a few copy-editing points, which I'll try to run through tomorrow night. In the meantime, how good is your French? There are a couple of books on Google which give some interesting details on the incident from the French perspective, but they're in French - e.g. here, here and here. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Two of the links lead to the same book same page. The second link has nothing more than a very brief description of the battle, forussing more on the political context and situation at the time.
• The first/third link claims that the very poor leadership of the French captain, led to the serious loss of command and control of the ship. The crew were each trying to fight their own battle, some demanding boarding action, but no maneuver was ordered for either. While some maneuver was finally carried out, the order to cease fire was given by the captain.
• After the battle the captain was on trial in France, but was declared not guilty of all charges.
  • I hope this helps. D2306 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a quick gist follows:

Troude (p.168) feels that the US effectively declared war under the pretext of the privateering question (i.e. this was a phony reason for their action). He notes that Barreaut wouldn't have been aware of the US action when he set sail from Guadeloupe. He also describes the chaos on the packed French ship when the fighting broke out (p.169). Barreaut was apparently put on court-martial afterwards in October 1799, for having not put up sufficient resistance to the Americans - he was acquitted.(pp169-170)

Bonnel describes Truxtun reporting afterwards that Barreaut had complained to him that the US had declared war on France by attacking his ship; that was fine by the French commander, however, as Barreaut declared that "je deteste les choses faites a moitie" - "I hate doing things by halves" (or "I hate leaving things half done") (pg.98). Truxton gave credit to Barreaut for his courage during the battle.(pg.98)

• Ive now added much of this information to the article.XavierGreen (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing points follow:

• "Following the outbreak..." - a fairly long sentence. Is it worth breaking after "vessels"?
  • Done.
• "Of the four squadrons, one under the..." would "One of the squadrons under the command of..." sound more natural?
  • Done.
• "At noon on 9 February while cruising independently..." I'd go for an alternative to "cruising independently" - its a fairly specific naval term that might throw a non-naval reader.
  • I changed it to sailing independent.
• "began to flee towards Saba and Sint Eustatius" - the locations are wikilinked, but I'd find it helpful if it said "the French islands of Saba and Eustatius", or something like that to explain a bit more.
  • Done.
• "French attempts at hailing her" - was this the gun that they fired in the previous sentence?
  • Yes i tweaked the sentence to reflect that.
• "However, having..." I'd recommend not starting with a "however".
  • Done.
• "Constellation crossed L'Insurgente's bow" - I'd be inclined to start this paragraph with a sentence like "The two ships engaged in a gun battle." - or words like that. It will make the subsequent sparring easier to follow.
  • They were already engaged before that though, crossing the Insurgents bow allowed Constellation to gain an advantage over the french vessel as the american frigate could fire a raking broadside down the whole length of the ship while Insurgente could not fire a broadside in reply as her guns were not facing the Constellation.XavierGreen (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The damage to the French frigate had been immense from both the storm and Constellation's guns." I'd reverse this sentence, making the verbs more active: "The storm and the battle had caused immense damage to the French frigate."
  • Done.
• "Of those killed..." > "Of those Americans killed..."
  • Done.
• "separated from the captured frigate in a squall" > "by a squall"?
  • Changed it to storm.
• "the comparatively large number of French prisoners " Comparatively large to the number of guards?
  • I fixed this I believe.
• " and Governor Edme Étienne Borne Desfourneaux of GuadelouIpe demanded that L'Insurgente be returned to French control since the two countries were not officially at war." Would "...and since the two countries were not at war, Governor... demanded..." sound more flowing?
  • Done.

Hope that helps. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• • It does help immensly, thanks for your review. My French skills are non-existant, do you know if the French accounts vary from the American ones? I know they do not substantially for Constellations action against Vengence, but that they do for Bostons engagement against Bercau.XavierGreen (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

It looks pretty good to me, but then I also usually have prose issues at FAC. You mention in the lead that the ship is renamed, but do not cover this in the body. I'm wondering if the new name should be used for things after its renaming? Magic♪piano 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nice catch, Ive now added that info to the aftermath section. For events that occured in her American service I've used the name Insurgent and for French service ive left it as L'Insurgente.XavierGreen (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)