Talk:William Hotham (Royal Navy officer, born 1772)

Summary

There is no reason for the length of the summary on this page, it looks like the entirety of a stub class article. Compare to similar pages such as Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood, John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent, or Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. The idea of the summary is to give a concise record of notability the rest of the article can deal with his exact feats. For community policy on this see Wikipedia:Lead section pay careful attention to the length section and what Summary Style means. SADADS (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, compare with the articles Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Henry Inman (Royal Navy officer), Thomas Mackenzie (Royal Navy officer), Henry Paulet, HMS Endeavour, etc. The articles you link to in fact give too little context, and ought to be expanded, though Cochrane is not quite as bad, but Jervis is woefully short and ought to be tagged as needing expansion. A well developed article like this one needs a equally well developed lead to cover all the key points and highlight all the areas of notability. See articles listed as good articles, A class articles and featured articles to get a better sense of leads, and don't assume that leads like Jervis' is a standard to be followed. Benea (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless Wikipedia:Lead section directly focuses on concise as the standard. A lead like you have is long and drawn out, perhaps it need not be as concise as I made it (the policy page recomends 1-2 paragraphs in length for the size of this article) but we not need focus on his every campaign. The second paragraph is 336 words long and 12 convuluted and complex sentences long! simples rules of english dictate this to be overbearing and in definite need of split! SADADS (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)