Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Bellerophon (1786)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Bellerophon (1786)[edit]

Nominator(s): Benea (talk)


One of the most storied ships of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the Billy Ruffian served in three of the major fleet engagements of the period, the Glorious First of June, the Nile and Trafalgar, with important service elsewhere. She became associated with the end of the fighting when Napoleon surrendered to Bellerophon's captain, ending nearly 20 years of continuous warfare, and immortalising the ship in art, songs and stories. One of only two Napoleonic-era ships (apart from of course the eternal HMS Victory) to have received a full book-length treatment of their career (the other being my previous FA HMS Temeraire). I believe this article fully reflects her service and strikes the right balance between completeness and encyclopaedic value, and thus I am nominating it for A class. Benea (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: some work needed here:
  • Life+70 tags require a separate tag for the US (which will be {{PD-US}} or similar), eg. File:HMS Bellerophon and Napoleon-cropped.jpg and several others
  • Where we have the originator of the work, it's best to give his date of death; where we don't have it, or you can't find his date of death, then I think a declaration that the timescales are too long would be sufficient.
  • Files such as File:Eastlake - Napoleon on the Bellerophon.jpg need a PD-ART "wrapper" since they are photographic representations of art. Some images used in the article already do.
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've fixed up the first two points, can you explain your third a little more, or otherwise provide an example? Benea (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is over whether the person whotook the photograph of the work has any copyright over it, such as the National Maritime Museum. That one's been argued over, and Wikimedia has made it clear that it's doesn't think so, but to show this, use the {{PD-Art|1=}} format where "1=" is followed by the image's licences, certainly including any non-US licences and it wouldn't hurt for the US either. (Checked a few of the other images – your changes look good.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All images should be suitably tagged now. Benea (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I won't support because I haven't assessed the other criteria, but it's clear for this one, which I'm sure other commenters will bear in mind. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • WP:OVERLINKing - Glorious First of June and Battle of the Nile both linked twice in the lead, HMS Elephant and Vanguard twice in one paragraph, etc
    • Fixed
  • "At 6 am on 28 May" - time zone?
    • None of the sources give any clarification. Nor does our featured article Glorious First of June. Any attempt to do so would be original research.
  • "1.40 pm" vs "5:30 pm" - use consistent notation
    • Fixed
  • Don't need ellipses at the beginning of quotations
    • Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether artworks are italicized or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where it is the title of the artwork, it's been italicised (Cadiz June 1797. The inshore blockading squadron coming to an anchor, Lord Howe engaging the French Fleet under Adm Villaret on the 29th May, etc), where it's not the title, the description has been left unitalicised. I can't see anywhere where this rule hasn't been followed, can you give an example? Benea (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • A nice article.
  • "Bellerophon was initially laid up in ordinary, briefly being commissioned" - although its linked, as part of the lead I think it might be worth explaining a little, as I don't think most non-specialists would know what this meant.
  • "£30,232.14.4d" - is there any way of comparing this figure to anything else in the footnote? As it stands, its hard to know if this was expensive or cheap for the time.
  • Ref the time zones - probably worth adding a footnote explaining that it isn't given in the sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Probably worth adding
    Main article: Glorious First of June
    , etc., to each of the sections on those battles.
    • Done
  • By MOS numbers ten and above should use digits.
    • I've had a look and can't see where you're thinking of in the article?
  • Should First-Lieutenant, etc., be hyphenated?
    • It seems to be a style issue, some sources hyphenate, others don't. I've de-hyphenated them.
  • HMS Bellerophon, HMS Cumberland, HMS Hercule, HMS Elephant, and HMS Vanguard The repeated HMS prefix here is annoyingly redundant.
    • I've removed all but the first.
  • Were the surviving ship's officers recognized in any way for their conduct in the Battle of the Nile? And who commanded the ship immediately after the battle? Was the 3rd Lieutenant left in command until relieved by a post captain?
    • Cathcart was promoted to commander at St Vincent's recommendation. Unusual since only the first lieutenant of a ship usually received a promotion. St Vincent made a point of observing this, but noted since the more senior lieutenants had been killed and that Cathcart had acquitted himself well, he felt an exception could be made. The Admiralty agreed and advanced him to commander. Darby was in command officially throughout, Cathcart becoming de facto commander when Darby was taken below. Darby was well enough to return to the deck at some point as the damaged Bellerophon drifted away, and resumed command from this point. I've clarified this in the text and added it to the note.
  • Overlinking to HMS Mars (1794), Check for other ships as well.
    • I think a link here is perhaps appropriate given that ten years chronologically has elapsed between the two mentions, and a large part of the article. It confirms which ship the Mars is, and that it is not some other ship that has entered service in the meantime.
      • I'm not persuaded by your argument and I think that the FAC reviewers will agree as they've been pretty stringent on overlinks with me. If it was a new ship, you should inform the reader with a new link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As he approached, the 74-gun Superb, flying Vice-Admiral Hotham's flag, was sighted approaching. We already know that Hotham's flagship is Superb.
    • Again I feel the mention is appropriate, since it also gives the information that Hotham has been promoted in the meantime, and confirms that Hotham had not transferred his flag to another ship. And the emphasis is on the sudden arrival of a more senior officer to Maitland, it was not just another warship sighted arriving, it was the fact that Hotham's flag was seen flying from her. This explains his actions to quickly get Napoleon on board in order to present Hotham with a de-facto situation, in the hopes that Hotham would not attempt to interpose himself on the situation.
      • I'll buy this one though you could perhaps reword it to something like "VA Hortham approached aboard Superb..." with de-emphasizes that it's still his flagship while simultaneouly confirming that he's kept his flag aboard her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link keel and gundeck in the infobox and fix the tons burthen entry by adding a space between the whole number and the fraction
    • Linked
  • Strongly prefer that you add a descriptive paragraph covering the ship's general characteristics. Otherwise links to obscure terms like tons burthen, etc., cannot be made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a description of dimensions, measurements, armament, etc. Benea (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent. My preference would be that you continue to do so for all of your ship articles, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the article is well referenced, seems comprehensive, is well structured, appears to be sufficiently MOS compliant and is well illustrated. As such, I support its promotion, however, for the purpose of the review, I have the following comments:
    • there are no dab links;
    • images have alt text;
    • spot check searches of the article using Google did not reveal any instances of copyright violation (I did a random selection at ten places throughout the text, using strings of five words);
    • "She was one of ten ships built". This should possibly be "She was one of 10 ships built" (I mention this to amplify the comment above by another reviewer, although I don't see it to be a bar to promotion. I believe that there is actually some leeway on this point in the MOS);
      • WP:MOSNUM states "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)". My preference in these instances is generally to use words for numbers less than 20.
    • "rescuing twelve men". As above "rescuing 12 men";
    • "his surgeon, and twelve servants". As above "his surgeon, and 12 servants";
      • As my comment above, but also MOSNUM - 'Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures' and the full sentence reads 'three officers, his surgeon, and twelve servants'
    • "consisting of thirteen", as above.
    • "For the next eighteen months", as above.
    • in the lead, "Napoleon" is probably overlinked (first paragraph and third);
      • Fixed
    • other examples of potential overlink include (identified by the duplicate link checker tool): quarterdeck, HMS Majestic (1785), Commodore (Royal Navy), Toulon, Mediterranean Fleet, HMS Mars (1794), HMS Tonnant (1798), HMS Swiftsure (1787), HMS Implacable (1805), Admiralty, Navy Board;
    • I'm not sure about the comma here: "There was no British fleet in the vicinity, the topsails were those of a convoy of British merchantmen." It might be best to replace it with either a semi-colon or a full stop;
    • in the Prison hulk section, there is some repetition in sentence structure here: "She was taken into Sheerness Dockyard in April 1826, and was fitted out for the journey to Plymouth.[132] She arrived there in June ..." (consecutive sentences starting with "She");
    • in the References, you might be able to find an OCLC number for the work by John Marshall on Worldcat.org.
    • Overall, very good work, IMO. Thanks for your contribution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Magnificently done; no major issues spotted by me, looking through it, both the original work and the cleanup per the above comments have been exquisitly done. My one concern is that some of the images are positioned such that they cause odd indenting (i.e. headers shifted to the right for left-aligned pictures) on wide (1440x900) screens, but that's just a quibble. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportI combed the article looking for anything to say, but it all seems to be tightly put together. Well done. Definitely has FAC potential. —Ed!(talk) 14:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. There's a bit more to be done here:

  • "Arrogant class design": Arrogant-class design
  • "recently-ordered": recently ordered, per WP:HYPHEN
  • "£30,232.14.4d": Not sure how much allowance you want to make for Americans, but most won't be able to read that. I suggest a link to £sd. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With war with Spain": The "withs" jangle.
  • "Bellerophon's first commander, Captain Thomas Pasley": comma after
  • "Howe's flagship, the 100-gun HMS Queen Charlotte": comma after
  • "Despite Howe isolating several French ships in the rear and pounding them with broadsides, Villaret ...": Howe isolated several French ships in the rear and pounded them with broadsides, but Villaret ...
  • "to support the Mars": to support Mars
  • "There was no British fleet in the vicinity, the topsails were those of a convoy of British merchantmen.": semicolon
  • "The remainder of the year was spent on continued blockade duty. This changed in early January 1797 ...": Blockade duty continued until early January 1797
  • "By then the French expedition had been dispersed by bad weather and": comma before "and" - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French commander, Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers": comma after
  • "Possibly due to some error on the part of the crew or the anchor dragging,": I don't recommend "due to (noun phrase) (gerund)", at least in Wikipedia's history articles. "Possibly due to some error on the part of the crew or because the anchor was dragging"
  • "who sustained a head wounded that rendered him unconscious": who was rendered unconscious by a head wound
  • "Daniel, and the ship's second lieutenant, Lander were both wounded, but were able to direct the fighting, until Daniel received a second wound, shooting away his left leg.": Perversely, the only thing technically wrong with this sentence is that it needs another comma, after "Lander". But see if you can rewrite this one to flow more smoothly, so that it doesn't need all those commas.
  • "It was by now about 9 pm and": Needs a comma separating the independent clauses, but since this sentence is so long, a semicolon instead of "and" would probably be better.
  • "Swiftsure's captain, Benjamin Hallowell": Needs a comma after. I'll stop mentioning these individually; please check throughout. I got the rest.
  • "with 212 members of Bellerophon's crew falling ill": Avoid with + noun + ing.
  • "Brine's commanded lasted": ?
  • "newly-appointed": newly appointed - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through and addressed these I think. Benea (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Bellerophon_(1786)&oldid=1138360617"