Talk:French ship Courageux (1753)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 20:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this one. The first review should be up in the next day or two. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I've copyedited the text extensively, and the prose is now at a good standard. The article complies with all the required section of MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The sources available online appear to confirm the broad outline of the article, along with most of the specific details; very interesting reading these old Gazettes!. Earwig's tool shows no sign of plagiarism of online sources; I've reduced a bit of close paraphrasing in the body.

   One detail: the infobox gives as her gundeck length the same figure that's given in the body as her keel length, where the body gives a substantially greater gundeck length. It looks to me as though the body is correct, but I'd like you to confirm.

Good spot. Yes, the figure in the infobox is the keel length not the gundeck.--Ykraps (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article needs to include the significant fact that the British subsequently based an entire class of warships on the design of the captured Courageux; this is important enough that it should go into the lead, as well as the body. The article currently seems to give uneven weight to various of the ship's actions, e.g. giving a level-3 heading and a hatnote to the fact that she was nearby the Battle of the Hyères Islands but failed to engage, while giving one short paragraph and no subheading or hatnote to the Battle of Cape Finisterre (1761), in which this ship was the lead participant and prize. There should be more thorough coverage of the Battle of Cape Finisterre and less of the Battle of the Hyères Islands.

   Yes, the bit about the Battle of Finisterre was already in the stub version and for some reason I forgot to expand on it. I have added what I could find in Clowes and given it its own sub-heading and main article template so it is at least on a par with the Hyeres section. Although she failed to engage at Hyeres, Courageux was at the battle and took part in the chase. I have tried to keep the paragraph which talks about the actual engagement to a bare minimum, and its hard to see how it can be reduced further without omitting it entirely. Do you perhaps have a suggestion?--Ykraps (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

   This is a huge improvement, well done! The balance of coverage is now much more reasonable. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

   I think our article on that class of warships is titled incorrectly. On p.57 Winfield refers to those ships as the Carnatic-class and on p.64 says that the Courageux-class, of which only one was built, was named after HMS Courageux 1800 and was based on the British Common-class and not this French prize. I will add a few lines about the Carnatic-class shortly.--Ykraps (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

   Also, the ship's actions in the failed attack on San Fiorenzo come chronologically in the middle of the occupation of Toulon, but the chronology currently jumps around (in order to unite the "Toulon" section). Reorganize the events into a single chronology, perhaps with the "Corsica" section as a subheading within the "Toulon" section. Consider also adding some more subheadings to the "Service" section to chunk off the ship's significant actions or deployments for easier reading.

   I've moved this to a combined section and retitled it Toulon and Corsica in order to keep the chronology as you suggest. I have also added a new section on her Channel service. Do you think that is sufficient or do you think it needs some level 4 headings?--Ykraps (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

   The organization is much more clear now, well done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The tone is appropriately neutral, showing no undue favor in e.g. recounting the ship's engagements.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article is currently completely without illustrations, and it needs some. File:Bellona & Courageux 1761.jpg is excellent, but it seems to have been ripped off of an auction site and has a questionable license; the Siege of Toulon has its own Commons category, as does the Naval Battle of Genoa (1795), and some images from those would be helpful for their sections. Look for an appropriate (and appropriately licensed) image of the action with Bellona in which she was taken by the British; a Google Image search reveals numerous paintings of the action, so try to find a free photo of one! If no good image of the Courageux is available, then you should choose an image of a Courageux-class ship of the line, which would work as an illustration for the infobox.

   A great start! I tend to think that the image of Carnatic would work better in the infobox, with the plans of Leviathan in the "Design" section. It would be great to see some illustrations of these significant actions in Courageux's history. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

   I did try swapping images but the cropped image of Carnatic extended the infobox quite a way into the service section. The Leviathan image would then cause 'text sandwiching'. As you say, the File:Bellona & Courageux 1761.jpg has dubious licensing so I didn't want to use it (UK copyright law differs from US. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute as an example). I have found a couple more images which seem okay. The licence for Pocock's drawing of the Battle of Genoa looks questionable but I know that the NMM released a number of low res images under a creative commons licence and given that on their website, the image has a share button, I guess this is one of them.[[1]] --Ykraps (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

   Fine additions! I see what you mean about the text sandwich; in that case, I think it would be better to have the drawing of Carnatic in the infobox and leave out the shipbuilder's plan of Leviathan; while interesting to a boatwright, the plans don't give nearly as clear a sense of the appearance of the finished ship (to a non-expert) as the sketch. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lots of good material here! The main issues are the disproportionate coverage of different events and the lack of illustrations. With some work, this should be able to meet the GA standard. Looking forward to hearing from the nominator! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

My last question regards the use of Template:Coord_missing. MoS and the Coordinates WikiProject say that shipwrecks should have their coordinates included. If indeed she wrecked at the foot of Mons Abyla, then shouldn't those coordinates be given, as her final resting place? Or, is it considered that, since she wrecked on the shore, the wreckage has presumably rotted and washed away, meaning that she has no proper location today? If she is considered to have a location, then the coordinates should be given; if not, then that template should probably be removed. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the template is for but I think it's for marking the site of a preserved wreck. As you say, Courageux would've broken up and washed away so there is no single site of the wreckage today. Removing the template doesn't seem to remove any categories so I guess it's okay to do that.--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And with that, the article is promoted to GA! Thanks to the nominator for being so responsive! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review--Ykraps (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC).