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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 26 December 2022 [1].


Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Sir Thomas Hardy, a distinctly unimpressive but surprisingly successful Royal Navy officer. While commanding a ship during the War of the Spanish Succession his chaplain discovered the location of a Spanish treasure fleet, resulting in the Battle of Vigo Bay and a knighthood for Hardy. Further commands and promotion followed for him, but in return all Hardy provided for the navy was a tendency to fail to find and engage the enemy. He would go on to be court martialled once for this but continued to be employed, until in 1716 his illustrious career was terminated possibly because he was a Jacobite. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • It is already linked in both places as "captain", so to avoid confusion I've removed the "post-" in the latter mentions too.
  • Done.
  • Removed.
  • Yes.
  • Indeed! His end was just as spectacular...
  • Done.
  • Removed.

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Partially done - did not add year as is mentioned in previous sentence.
  • Done.
  • Done the former.
  • Done.

That's it for a first pass. I'll read through again once you've responded to these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments, responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixes look good. One more question:

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephen's maternal aunt was married to John. John left the majority of his estate to Stephen's father on the condition that they took his surname. Stephen wrote the biography of John that I believe both these comments originate from. The sources don't go into more detail though. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Looks FAC quality to me. You have two non-MILHIST supports, so you might want to ping the editors who reviewed this for A-class to see if any have time to add a review here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review[edit]

Otherwise sources are reliable and the links work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe them all to be reliable. I would have liked to have used more modern sources, but this period is a strange one in that as time had gone on the histories have gotten less detailed and really less has been written altogether. Sir John Knox Laughton is probably one of the most accomplished naval historians of the last few hundred years, and his work in the Dictionary of National Biography has been added in most cases untouched to the modern Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Charnock's biographies are unique in their breadth of content and are still being republished by Cambridge University Press. Campbell is not perhaps as well known but I have used him only for a couple of minor details. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Removed.
  • Have made an attempt
Perhaps 'for her marriage to the important English ally the Archduke Charles'?
  • Done.
  • I have made an attempt to expand on the subject but sources go into very little detail as to what the accusations against Hardy in particular were, so I've had to stay pretty general
  • Done.
  • Expanded out a little
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Double checked the source and it's actually Guernsey trade.
  • It was a yearly appointment that seems to have usually gone from November to November, but the dates aren't given for Hardy in particular.
  • Reworked.
  • Nope. ODNB doesn't think it strange at all, saying "in May 1698 he was appointed to the Deal Castle, in April 1701 to the Coventry, and in January 1702 to the Pembroke".
  • People from the Channel Islands are usually fluent in French, it's a bit of a melting pot of Anglo-French culture there. The sources don't explicitly say that though, I'm just guessing in this instance.
  • I should think that all but certain. Is there no way of indicating as much to the reader?
  • I don't believe so. The sources are as follows:
  • "There the chaplain of the Pembroke, also a native of Jersey, who was assumed on shore to be a Frenchman..."
  • "Her chaplain...By accident he encountered, and struck up an acquaintance with, the French Consul"
  • "His chaplain, a Mr. Beauvoir, a native of Jersey...fell...into company with the French consul, who incautiously boasted..."
  • No need for a note, I'd mis-read the source; it's the knighthood that is the reward in this instance (duh!).
  • Reworded. my thought process was probably that a captain would prefer a new ship to an old one, but that's perilously close to OR!
I am sure you are correct, but, as you say ...
  • Reworded.
  • Done.
  • Reworded, although I don't think I have the sources to actually say when/how the squadron came to move.
  • Added.
  • Sources don't say exactly what this trade was but I've described it as merchant ships.
  • Reworded to be more accurate to source.
  • Reworded.
  • Reworked.
  • Made an attempt.
  • Reworded.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • While I'm not an expert on this by any means, my reading leads to be believe that the answer is..not really? The literature does discuss how she was very beautiful, but when it comes to consequences they're mostly how Elisabeth Christine was able to use her new position to give her family money.
  • Done.
  • Reworded both instances.
  • Changed to "merchant ship". Added what very little the source says about the ship.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Expanded on.
  • Done.
  • Reworded.
  • Hardy did not capture it; "that out of the remainder, three were captured, and one blown up". Reworded.
  • Used "to begin" to avoid too many "place"s.

That's it for a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Have responded to all above. Thanks for the detailed review! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. A couple of come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Responded. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Only five images.

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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