Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [1].

USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente[edit]

USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel it meets the requirements of a Featured Article. This article covers the first battle of the Quasi-War, which also happens to be the first naval battle in the history of the United States Navy. This article has been rated as a good article and undergone a Military History A-class review. Since its last featured article nomination it has been copy edited and gone through a Military History peer review.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - 1 circular link (Action of 9 February 1799), no dead external links. --PresN 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think i fixed this (i removed the only mentioning of that former name in the article), but i dont really understand what a circular link is?XavierGreen (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A circular link is when a wikilink on an article points to a redirect back to that article; in essense, linking to itself. Normally, such a wikilink to the present page is disabled and the text bolded (assuming navbox use, I believe), but redirects bypass this feature. I thought that the offending link might have been in Template:Campaignbox Quasi-War, but it looks like your edit took care of it (though I fixed another redirect on the template), and I detect no other redirect issues. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • You should consider using the images from USS Constellation that I uploaded, specifically File:USSConstellationVsInsurgente.png, since its a lot more visually appealing and depicts the critical part of the action when the Constellation raked the L'Insurgente's bow (third paragraph of Battle section).
  • Was the article name addressed in your GA/A review already? I think Action of 9 February 1799 should be in the lead somewhere since its DABed from other articles.
  • The date should be in the lead: you could say The USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente, or the Action of 9 February 1799..., or ...fought between the French Navy and the United States Navy on 9 February 1799.
  • Alternation between United States Navy and US Navy - probably should be consistent about this (I would prefer United States Navy).
  • Use Measuringworth.org to put the value of the ship(s) in 2007 dollars.
  • Aftermath section could use an image; I think there's an image of the USS Insurgent somewhere; Truxtun is easy to find.
    • I moved the action diagram down to the aftermath section, i dont want to copy to many of the same images from the Constellation article.XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Battle section doesn't match up perfectly with the story in the USS Constellation (1797)#Quasi War, specifically the part where the 24 pound guns were replaced with 18 pound guns after the battle, and the reason why L'Insurgente had the weather gage in this action.
    • Palmer (p. 98) states that Constellation had the weather gage at first, but that he yielded it volunterally because the ship was heeling. As for the overarming problem, almost every ship in the navy was overarmed to the point where the extra guns reduced the maneuverability of the vessels drastically. I have found a few other sources corroborating that the Constellation's twenty four pounders were removed specifically because of the problems their weight caused in the action, so ive added it in.XavierGreen (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toll's book Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the US Navy might be a good source to review.
    • Ive read the relevent sections, although it seems he did an extremely poor job citing his work.XavierGreen (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its a valid criticism - I also dislike under-cited books, but this book won two military history awards so its still a good source. Kirk (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should qualify ...United States naval victory against a foreign naval vessel. somehow - I don't know if that's exactly accurate considering the existence of the Revenue Cutter service in the 10 years before the Navy was re-founded in 1794, and the United States Navy recognizes the achievements of the Continental Navy as its own. It was the first victory of a United States Naval vessel against a foreign naval vessel after the Navy was re-founded by the Naval Act of 1794.
    • Legally the United States Navy did not exist before 1794, and the revenue cutter service did not attack any foreign naval vessels before the War of 1812. The cutters in the service at its founding were barely armed, only with muskets and occasionally with swivel guns. In the few instances when they met hostile foreign naval vessels, they simply fled. No revenue cutters engaged any French national vessels during the Quasi-War. It is well sourced that this is the first battle fought by the United States navy against a foriegn naval vessel.XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know what I was thinking with 10 years - I meant from 1790 until 1798 when the first navy ships were commissioned. Anyways, cutters certainly engaged French privateers during the Quasi-War and you can't be too careful with 'firsts' - it looks like it was both the first victory of the United States Navy & the first naval victory of the United States.
        • Ah, privateers are a different story. The revenue cutter service did fight a handful of engagements with privateers but they were after this action. The navy did make a few captures of privateers before this engagement, and the frigate United States sunk a privateer a six days before this action, but none of those French vessels resisted in anyway (even in the case of the sunken one). There was one brief battle in 1798 between the USRC Unaminity and the HMS Mosquito, but it ended indecisively as both vessels mistook each other for Frenchmen before realizing their mistakes. It was good of you to ask because the early history of the war can be very murkey and confusing at times.XavierGreen (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • officially classified by the United States Navy as a 36-gun frigate - I think this note from an A article is helpful on how to explain the mystery of 18th century ship ratings : USS Chesapeake (1799)#cite note-rating-5 Kirk (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a note explaining that it was common for ships to carry more guns than their ratings.XavierGreen (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wording could be better, but it resolves my issue. Kirk (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading Brad's comments, I agree with him, and Toll is pretty easy to get at a library and has a good account of this action. If you can't get it someone with a copy might be able to help you resolve some of the inconsistencies (I put some details below, and I would help, but I do not have time, sorry!) Kirk (talk)

Sources and Image Review

  • Both images are PD-US and now moved to Commons, no problems with captions
  • Coren's and Earwig's tools found no plagiarism, and a few spotchecks found no evidence of close paraphrasing
  • Why no dates for notes 21 and 22?
  • Location for Roberts?

Sources seem reliable and good quality, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Mostly good;
    • It would be nice if some of the more technical terms or nouns were explained rather than just linked; unless you've got popups installed (i.e., a very small percentage of the editor population, let alone the reader population) you have to navigate away from the page to figure out what a term means, and per web usability standards that's just going to result in lots of people not reading the article. Just a rephrase to explain what a frigate is as opposed to a corvette (such as "light warship, or corvette"), or just another word ("upper or spar deck") can greatly help non-naval buffs.
    • Along the same lines, there are terms linked in the lead that are not linked first-time in body.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

  • "...with the mission to engage..." could this be rephrased as "...with the mission of engaging..." or "...with orders to engage.."?
  • "...was sailing independent of his squadron..." shouldn't this be "independently", because it's describing a verb?
  • "In response, the United States..." should include "to the attacks", right now it's slightly ambiguous whether the response was to the attacks or to the undeclared war.
  • "The 1,265-ton Constellation was officially classified by the United States Navy as a 36-gun frigate, however during the Quasi War she carried..." Would read better as "Though the 1,265-ton Constellation was officially classified by the United States Navy as a 36-gun frigate, during the Quasi-War she carried". The Quasi-War should have a hyphen in all instances.
  • "...was armed with 40 cannon." Don't know if this is just the terminology, but should this be "cannons", plural?
    • Cannon is the plural form, as deer is the plural of deer.XavierGreen (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and two 24-pounder carronades,[5] however totalling a combined throwing weight of..." could be rephrased as "...and two 24-pounder carronades.[5] However, its total combined throwing weight was..." Also, "totaling" only has one "l" in American English; the same goes for "signaling", which is spelled with two "l"s later in the article.
  • "Consequently in a boarding action" could use a comma after "consequently".
  • "At noon on 9 February while cruising independently" could use a comma after "February".
  • gale should be linked.
  • "still unidentified" should be hyphenated
  • "...and closed to within pistol shot..." this terminology should be either explained or rephrased, perhaps as "pistol range"?
  • "Having the advantage of undamaged rigging" could use a comma at the end here.
  • "...but receiving damage to her rigging in return." should be "received", past tense.
  • "...disabling the French vessel's 18 pounder guns." should this be "18-pounder guns" with a hyphen?
  • "...but the French ship had by now..." should be "then", the whole article should be in the past tense.
  • "...and take possession of his vessel." should be "the" vessel, as by that point it's unclear who the "he" referred to is (presumably not the victor, but let's just remove ambiguity).
  • "...one man had died shortly after the action of mortal wounds received from French fire..." could this be rephrased as "...one man had died shortly after receiving mortal wounds from French fire..."?
    • The man died after the action had ended, if i change it to what you suggested it is unclear if he died during the action or after.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then might I suggest a comma after "action" here? --Gyrobo (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the first clause of the sentence and added the comma.XavierGreen (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better, but instead of "One of the two Americans killed..." could it read "One of the two American fatalities..."?
  • "...however by nightfall..." should be "but" by nightfall.
  • "...condemned as a war prize in favor of the crew of the..." seems kind of hard to read, could this be rephrased somewhat? I'm hesitant to try to rephrase this because I don't fully understand the meaning behind it.
    • There really isnt any way to describe this in laymans terms. As part of prize warfare, captured vessels were sent to Admiralty courts to determine the legitimacy of the prize. The prize could be found a war prize or an illegal capture. If found a warprize she could be condemmed to be sold in favor of her captors or depending on various factors she could be returned to her origonal owners, or condemed to be sold with all or a portion of the proceeds going to the owners. Since this was a French national naval vessel, the L'Insurgente was condemned to be sold with the proceeds going to the crew of the Constellation. I have rewritten the sentence to make it a bit clearer.XavierGreen (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks fine now, but it's like David Fuchs said above, the article needs to have terminology and concepts like this explained so that it is in laymen terms. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fêted" could use a link.
  • Not really an issue, but it could help you better group your notes and avoid naming references if you used {{sfn}}.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately i dont really know how to use that new style of citing, the old sytle is the only one im familiar with.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on current prose, but will probably need another read-through once Kirk's issues are addressed. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose Brad (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are some fundamental mistakes in this article that can't be overlooked. Example: The French ship raised French colors and fired a gun to leeward (Allen p. 96) means that the shot was fired away from Constellation; not at. A gun to leeward was a signal roughly meaning "Don't shoot I want to talk first."
    • Barreaut claimed he had the gun fired leeward in an attempt to hail Truxton. Truxton claimed that the shot was fired windward and at the Constellation. Regardless Truxton did not want to talk, and told Barreaut after the action that he would fight any French Frigate he met regardless of the circumstances. I personally believe that the shot was fired leeward because of the orders Barreaut had recieved from the French regional commander, Desfourneaux, that ordered French national vessels to avoid fights with American national vessels. In any circumstance i have now changed it simply to say that L'Insurgente fired a gun with no mention of direction.XavierGreen (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here is presented an article entirely devoted to the battle therefore it should contain the conflicting statements with an explanation. Simply removing the controversy or only showing it from one side is hurting the completeness of the article. Brad (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The battle description in the USS Constellation article is a bit overwrought but agrees with the pages written by Toll. I've just reviewed those pages. There are differences that need to be researched. Brad (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which differences do you speak of? Some accounts of the action that i have read use only American sources and differ slightly from accounts that use both French and American sources. As i stated in another comment above, the American and French accounts do differ slightly in regards to how the action started, but beyond that they corroberate with each other quite well.XavierGreen (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are some differences from Toll:
        • Truxtun sent the British private signal, recieved a response of the US ensign, send the US private signal, received no response, ship cleared for action, L'Insurgente raised French flag and fired a shot to windward in affirmation.
        • The weather gage discussion is on page 117 (basically what I mentioned earlier)
        • When ships closed within pistol shot range (that needs to be changed to a distance btw), the French captain asked for parlay, which Truxtun ignored.
          • Fixed, though no souce gives an exact distance.XavierGreen (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The French responded by firing at the rigging, damaging the topmast, which was saved by Midshipman David Porter, stationed in the foretop, climbed up and cut away the slings saving the mast.
        • John Rogers was the First Lieutenant.
        • According to Toll, the US had 3 killed - one of the wounded died of his wounds.
          • The source Toll uses (a letter from Porter) does not itself mention 3 dead, it mentions 3 men wounded and one man shot for cowardice. If you look in Tolls citations (which are few and far between) there is no other citation for the casualties he lists other than the letter from porter which he quotes in the text on page 120.XavierGreen (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some of the confusion may lay in the fact that in offical naval documents of the time, the man shot for cowardice was recorded as being killed in action. Since Toll does not give any specific source other than the one i mentioned above, i don't know if it can be considered as reliable in terms of casualties.XavierGreen (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • <sts just a few details here and there; probably resolvable in this FAC. Kirk (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this FAC been abandoned? Just wondering. Brad (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator has been essentially absent since mid-month. I wish we had gotten a status update or statement of intent. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's recently returned to editing. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have gotten ahold of Toll and will address the remaining comments today and tommorrow.XavierGreen (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I crossed out everything except Porter's rigging adventure; I blew through Toll looking for example differences so I made some mistakes, my apologies. Looks good! Kirk (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wheeler p. 7 should be p. 6.. I think. P. 6 is not very clear in backing up a 'first victory'. Roberts p. 47 backs up what Toll says about David Porter and the rigging but Roberts p. 45 claims that Constellation was carrying 48 guns..? Where did that come from? Brad (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why i am hesitant in including the rigging portion is that i am not 100% sure it actually occured. Palmer states that the Memoir of David Porter by his son Admiral David Dixon Porter contains elements that are not consistent with other primary source accounts and that some portions may be embellisments of the facts. Since toll didnt list a source i couldnt be certain where the rigging story came from, Palmer does not include it in his work at all. I did find this source [[2]] which alludes to the rigging story as well as the 48 guns you mentioned. In the source above, the rigging story is cited as comming from David Dixon Porters work. After double checking several sources some others also state 48 guns, with the difference being in the number of 18 pounders listed (some say 10 some say 20) though the source for these numbers is usually not listed. Perhaps footenotes would solve these issues.XavierGreen (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ive added in a note about the sources differing armaments, added in the info on Porter in the topmast, changed the citation of the First Victory to page 6, as well as added an additional source to back up the assertion.XavierGreen (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I struck my oppose. Usually it's a matter of weighing sources when they disagree with each other. If you have 5 sources and 3 mention Porter and 2 do not then majority wins etc. One last thing, in the bibliography some listings have the OCLC numbers and some don't. All listings should have them displayed or not displayed; not a mixture. Brad (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm doing some light copyediting; there's not a lot of work here. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "held the weather gauge": Can you rephrase in terms readers will be more likely to understand? I know they can click, but most won't.
    • I think the term is more understandable now, i added that the weather gauge is an advantageous position in the wind.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the other was killed for cowardice by Constellation's Lieutenant": I expected "executed" here; would that be accurate?
    • Yea, since the navy didnt have any qualms about it that would be correct.XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend consistency: go with either "Insurgent" or "L'Insurgent".
    • I think ive used L'Insurgente for events that occured when the ship was in French service, and Insurgent when it was in American service after it was captured. The name was formally changed to Insurgent when she was placed in American service.XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I can see all the reasons for switching back and forth now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments'
    • I doubt that beautiful painting atop the article is public domain. If you go to the source (here), it says "Courtesy of the artist". That would not be necessary if it were PD. Now, the photograph may be PD, but...
      • If you look at the bottom of (here) it states that the image is in the Public Domain according to the best knowledge of the Navy.XavierGreen (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see it now, thanks.
    • "after three hours of combat." I see two sources that make that an hour and a quarter. I won't {{fact}} tag it, but... besides, is this mentioned in the body of the article anywhere? – Peacock.Lane 00:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed it from the lead since it isnt mentioned anywhere within the body of the text.XavierGreen (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's an important detail of the battle. You should research it carefully and put it in the Battle section. After that, it can either be put in the lede or not; that's a judgment call, and both ways are probably OK. – Peacock.Lane 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ive added it in, the engagement lasted one hour and fourteen minutes. The action with the La'Vengence lasted for 3 hours so i must have used that figure mistakenly at first.XavierGreen (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any French teachers lurking? Should it be "L'Insurgente" or "the L'Insurgente", since I assume that "l'" means "the"? I'm leaning toward the former. The book Truxtun of the Constellation has that usage... I queried at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. – Peacock.Lane 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though i know virtually nothing of French, ive seen it written in both styles in a number of accounts (with some works actually using them interchangably).XavierGreen (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Truxton claimed the L'Insurgente's shot was fired windward to signal a fight"... I just saw another source in Amazon.com which stated that he windward shot was signal that the French ship was flying her true colors after striking the US flag and raising the French...– Peacock.Lane 01:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which source is that? It is well documented that the French captain claimed he fired to leeward which was a common naval signal to tell another ship that they wished to communicate, while Truxton claimed that the shot was fired to windward at his vessel. If you read relevent French accounts, they describe how the Governor of Guadalope issued strict orders to the French national vessels under his command not to provoke or engage American warships. Barreaut himself was quite beffudled during the action, and to his officers and Truxton claimed to not understand why the Americans were attacking him.XavierGreen (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More review needed. Just doing spot checks, I found problems with the writing in "Aftermath":
  • How does a "fatality" die?
"fatality" is synonymous with "casualty" in the WNW thesaurus, and it's acceptable to say that one casualty died of this while another died of that. It wasn't wrong, but it certainly was redundant, and I've fixed that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "troublesome 24-pounder guns were removed and replaced with 18-pounder cannon" One cannon? Many cannons?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought up the issue of "cannon" earlier in the review, and it seems that both "cannon" and "cannons" are acceptable plural terms (though I personally think "cannons" reads better). --Gyrobo (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There were two "cannon" (plural) and one "cannons"; now all 3 are "cannons". - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that, though both plural forms are correct the form used should be consisted as it now is.XavierGreen (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Constellation_vs_L%27Insurgente/archive1&oldid=1138474633"