Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Bellerophon (1786)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 14:45, 14 August 2012 [1].

HMS Bellerophon (1786)[edit]

Featured article candidates/HMS Bellerophon (1786)/archive1

Nominator(s): Benea (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after undergoing a substantial and thorough A-class review here, I feel this article fulfils the criteria for FA class. As one of the wooden walls of England, Bellerophon was a more storied ship than most, serving at three major fleet actions as well as participating in the more routine duties of blockade and escort duties. She had a long and active career that eventually ended up, like many others, as a converted hulk, before her breaking up. Typical of the third rate ships of her age, she is also one of the few to have been given book-length treatments. Using the detailed histories of the ship and her period, I believe this strikes the right balance between encyclopaedic value, and completeness. Benea (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. No changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (If no edits are showing, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield title differs between citations and reference list
- Fixed
How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author?
- Alphabetical order of their titles.
Roberts: Wellington & Napoleon or Napoleon & Wellington? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Benea (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I'm aware dismasted is not a hyphenated word, unless with reason of course. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on all criteria, except sources and media rights, which I have not reviewed. Suggestions:

The article contains over 60 uses of the personal pronoun "she", often within sentences, and at the start of successive sentences or clauses. More variation would read better.
I agree with question above on "dismast*". Is "dis-masted" in current use? Kablammo (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked this, I don't know if dis-masted is wrong, but dismasted is used in my sources, so I've made the change. It would have been my natural preference, but for some reason my spellchecker kicks at it, and probably in a crisis of confidence, I foolishly went along with it. Benea (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rotate between the ship's name, "the ship" and "she" to avoid overusing either the name or the pronoun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Was Cumby commended for commanding the ship after Darby was disabled during Trafalgar?
Why do we see HMS Bellerophon used after the first appearance?
Link yard, flagship, grenade, musket. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Made changes, yard was already linked though? I assume Cooke rather than Darby? I've added a note on Cumby's promotions. He'd also have shared in the financial grants and awards made, but none of the sources say this explicitly or how much he received. His position was also a little anomalous, a first lieutenant, but one who had captained a ship at the battle, so I'd be wary of simply applying either the sum given to lieutenants or that to captains. Benea (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks: Benea's last FAC AFAIK was this one for HMS Temeraire; spotchecks were done by Winfield, the author of one of her sources. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with two comments I rarely venture into FAC reviews, so feel free to ignore the comments. However, a great article. Very nicely put together, well referenced, seemingly comprehensive, a nice and relevant number of illustrations—and an interesting read too.

"£30,232.14.4d." Is there any way to give a conversion that doesn't involve OR?
"At 6 am on 28 May". GMT or elsewhere? If the sources don't clarify then that's fine, although I may be tempted to put in a note that it's unclear which time zone it was in.

Aside from those two very minor points, which may not be possible without straying into unwanted waters, then great work. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Both are fair points, but as you say probably venture into OR. Certainly it is very difficult to compare big capital projects like warship construction over different time periods, and the position taken at my previous FACs has been not to attempt a conversion. As to the second point, the sources unfortunately don't say. I'm sure it can be calculated and is implicitly known what time this related to by those who write these books, but I haven't seen a detailed explanation given. Benea (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

Two things re. the lead:
- Personally I'm more inclined to "and was the ship aboard which Napoleon finally surrendered" rather than "and was the ship Napoleon finally surrendered aboard", but I won't push it if everyone prefers it as is.
- I note Kablammo's comment above re. the repetitive "She" to begin sentences. This is particularly noticeable in the second para, with five instances in a row; I'm sure we could mix it up with the occasional "The ship" or "Bellerephon", and perhaps even a bit of sentence restructuring.
Looks like we still need an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some changes to address these. As to the image review, a comprehensive review was carried out at the A-class review here. I'm away for a couple of weeks from tomorrow, so I'll probably be unable to address any further issues until after my return. Benea (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tks for the above, I think the review has been open long enough and we have the consensus to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.