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.

HMS Speedy (1782)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Benea (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed GA review, and I believe it meets the necessary requirements. Benea (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added text
  • I don't see much point in this, if the historical amount were to be converted, it should be into its modern equivalent, rather than to apply a decimal system that did not exist to a historical figure. Our featured article on a contemporary ship (HMS Endeavour) does not convert the sum.
  • This was a common occurrence in peacetime for practically every type of warship, and usually happened with the change of commander. After fairly long or arduous commissions, the ship would be taken into the dockyard, the crew often dispersed among the other ships of the fleet, and usually a survey carried out. The ship was then laid up until such time that the Admiralty decided on a use for her, and any repairs or refits were carried out before the ship recommissioned under a new commander.
  • By this stage (the mid-1790s) the 64-gun ships were no longer considered ships of the line, as their armament was no longer sufficient to stand in the line of battle (at least that was the conventional wisdom). The 74 guns became the smallest rated ships that were considered suitable as 'ships of the line', and the 64s were gradually being phased out of the navy by this time.

I added some links you might want to check to ensure your happy with them --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can to address these issues. Best, Benea (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not experienced enough with articles on 18th century ships to know yet. OTOH, neither are some of the reviewers you'll encounter here and at FAC, and I don't know how they'll respond ... so for now, do nothing, but have a few examples ready if necessary at FAC of articles that use similar language in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A conversion can be added, ie that the sum was 'roughly equivalent to £652,200 in present day terms.' For some reason the template does not allow the figure to be expressed naturally as '£403,000' though. Would this help? Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would help, and I think that would probably be okay (assuming we're preparing for FAC, this is certainly FAC-worthy). I guess my strategy at FAC, whenever possible, is to edit in a way that minimizes the chance that anyone will quote WP:MOSNUM for any reason ... it's better if those conversations just don't even get started. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this to make it clearer. 'Carried' means to capture in this context, 'brought off' refers to the ships being re-floated and sailed away from the enemy. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the meaning here is not to do with one of speed, though the implication is that it happened quickly, but as you note, the question of wind direction. They ran in with the wind, rather than having to warp in, for example. I've changed it back, though I'm not sure what you would link it to though.Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience ... in retrospect, waking up to see someone made 52 edits to your excellent article might not have been the most clever way to begin a collaboration :) I should have taken the time to scan your other articles and get a sense that if you said "ran", you probably meant "ran". I look forward to learning a lot from you, as I have from Parsecboy, Sturmvogel_66 and others. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also ... I linked it, I use Sailing#Running but there may be other links that are better. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cochrane tried to give Speedy a more powerful armament, to make her more of a threat to enemy shipping, more likely to triumph in combat, etc, by fitting her with more and larger guns. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would "armament" be acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely optional how much you want to buy in to what I'm doing here; I'm trying to make the article transparent to Brits, Americans, and others ... especially Brits and Americans who might review it at FAC :) OTOH, I definitely don't want to dumb it down, remove all the nautical terms, or change your style to my style. I routinely ask the American editors to make changes so that the articles will be more accessible in Commonwealth countries; read any of the recent A-class articles and see if you agree that they don't sound "disagreeably American" to your ear (and if they do, tell me!). But the bottom line is that this is not my article, and the guidelines are clear that it's okay if language doesn't sound right to everyone in every country, so feel free to revert anything I do or tell me off. (I mean that; productive relationships between professional writers and professional copyeditors always involve some degree of irritation. It comes with the territory, and I don't mind.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, though writers emphasise the importance of inflicting confusion and surprise on the enemy, when some of the crew hesitate, so the effect spreads. The black faced boarders were to imitate the pirates and moorish corsairs the Spanish had centuries of experience with, and to confuse and dismay them. He followed this up with the attack from the waist, leaving the Spanish surrounded. It's probably too much detail for here, and I'm happy with the reword. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I get it. I have no objection to adding that, especially if there are sources that echo the same thing from the point of view of the Spanish crew. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but it seems to emphasise the important aspects of the action, firstly Cochrane's daring in taking practically his entire crew onto the enemy ship (where they were still outnumbered 6 to 1), and then his bravado at calling for 50 more men, when there was not a single man to spare. Both factors were crucial elements in the subsequent victory. If there are no suggestions, perhaps see if this becomes a problem later? Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. If forced to choose one ship article out of the last 20 to make into a movie, it would be this one, it's not even close. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • there is quite a bit of whitespace in the French Revolutionary Wars section when I view the article due to the placement of the Cunningham image (this might just be my screen, though);
    • some of the ISBNs are hyphenated, but others arent (these should be consistent);
    • the titles in the References should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
    • could OCLC numbers be added to the works without ISBNs? The Ralfe work can be found here, I think: [1]
AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (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.
More