Talk:HMS Aigle (1801)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 14:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; para 1;
  • Mention the class which she belongs to.

    Done - the practice was to name the class after the first ship built so the "Aigle was the first of..." was meant to imply the class without the clumsiness of "Aigle was an Aigle-class". The class was also mentioned in the infobox. Other articles such as HMS Amazon (1799), have apparently done the same; presumably for the same reasons. No big deal either way though.--Ykraps (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Mention the position of Sir John Henslow, also a full stop after first sentence.

    Done --Ykraps (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Abbreviate the units from second mention using |abbr=on in the conversion template.

    I'm not sure what you're asking here. I have abbreviated the units converted using the sigfig=3 parameter which rounds to a single decimal place. Using the abbr=on parameter will increase the conversion to two decimal places. Is that what you're wanting?--Ykraps (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

    • • Not exactly, this is different. In first instance you mention "metres" in full, from the second, if you use "abbr" it just says "m". Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

        Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Link beam, depth in the hold.

    I've linked "beam" but there doesn't appear to be a link for depth in hold. Unless I'm missing something? --Ykraps (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The sentence "This made her 970  84⁄94 tons (bm)" is a bit awkward. Change it to She weighed XXXX or so.

    Tons burthen is a measure of volume, hence her dimensions made her that tonnage. I've written out in full and added a link.--Ykraps (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Mention "bm" in full as it is the first mention.

    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; para 2; Link gun deck, quarter deck, forecastle on first mention

  Done. --Ykraps (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 2; para 1;
  • Aigle was first commissioned for the English Channel, what do you mean by commissioned for the English Channel, was it used to patrol of the channel or what, mention that clearly and also remove "first", no need of that.

    Commissioned means, made ready for service. I've linked to an article on ship commissioning, although commissioning is commissioning irrespective of whether it's a ship or anything else. As to what she was doing in The Channel, the short answer is yes, she was patrolling it. Orders were generally unspecific and captains were given a lot of leeway, because they had to react quickly to changing events. Before the invention of radio, communication between fleets and the Admiralty, or even individual ships, was extremely difficult; it might be months before new orders were received and by then they might well be out of date. This was one of the things Napoleon failed to understand.--Ykraps (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

    The article says she was patrolling The Channel, by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Who is George Wolfe, mention his position.

    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • put ashore in Portland -> went ashore in Portland

    Is there something you don't like about "put ashore"? It's a fairly standard phrase in English [[1]] and while "went ashore" wouldn't be incorrect, "put ashore" is the more common term, particularly when the parties were rowed ashore in boats, as indeed they were in this case. --Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • In what became known locally as the Easton Massacre, is a bit awkward and also confusion, reword.

    I've removed the word "locally" because it was actually quite widely known as the Eastern Massacre, and it makes the sentence less awkward.--Ykraps (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 2; para 2; re-floating the stranded ships so Wolfe ordered them destroyed -> re-floating the stranded ships, Wolfe ordered them to be destroyed\

  Would you mind looking at this again? Altering the sentence as you suggest will make it read, "The heavy swell prevented the British from re-floating the stranded ships, Wolfe ordered them to be destroyed". I don't think that makes sense. I could perhaps say something like, "Unable to re-float the stranded ships due to the heavy swell; Wolfe ordered them to be destroyed". --Ykraps (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • • That looks good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

      Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 2; para 4;
  • Temporary command was given to Henry Sturt -> Henry Sturt was made the commander of the ship temporarily, can you explain why this was done? Why the happened to the previous commander Wolfe?

    It could've been for a number of reasons but unfortunately the source doesn't reveal why.--Ykraps (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • was back in charge -> retook charge

    He didn't take charge on that day, he was back in charge by the time that engagement took place; having previously taken back command on an undisclosed date. I have changed the wording slightly to make this clearer.--Ykraps (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Vice-admiral, capitalize the first "a" in admiral and also remove "-"

    Hyphenating vice-admiral is an English variation. See here [[2]] for example.--Ykraps (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Mention the position of Admiral Cornwallis then and also mention his full name.

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 2; para 5;
  • Two Chasse-marées, which country's and why?

    The source doesn't say. It refers to them as enemy vessels but that doesn't help much.--Ykraps (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • in a cutting-out expedition, expedition to where?

    I'm not sure if I understand the question. A cutting-out expedition (linked in the article) is a boat action, so the expedition is from Aigle to the enemy ship. If you're asking where the action took place, again, the sources don't say but it was probably in The Channel.--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Mention details about Pallas and Gibraltar, their nation and type.

    I've added number of guns as I think their nationality is implied by being in the same squadron. If anyone is in doubt, they can click the links.--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Link schooner

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 2.1;
  • Mention details about Italienne and Sirene, their nation?

    I've added the nationality as you suggest. I've already said they were frigates of 40 and 38 guns; is there more information you're expecting?--Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • re-supplied -> resupplied, south-east -> southeast

    Resupplied appears to be correct but compass points are definitely hyphenated in British English.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • A comma (,) after "sought the shelter of Groix' batteries"

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As it was now dark, remove "now"

    I'm not sure about that. I think the "now" is needed to indicate that it wasn't dark previously; given that, at that latitude in March, one might reasonably expect it to be.--Ykraps (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • chasing merchantmen, which country's?

    Different countries'; French, Spanish, Dutch, American. The Royal Navy would not only take enemy vessels but vessels of any nation if they were thought to be trading with the enemy.--Ykraps (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 2.2;
  • Link Lord Cochrane

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • north-east -> northeast

    WP:ENGVAR

  • A comma (,) after anchored behind HMS Imperieuse

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 2.3;
  • it left The Downs on 28 July intent destroying the dock-yards, and arsenals at Antwerp -> it left The Downs on 28 July, intent destroying the dock-yards and arsenals at Antwerp

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Troops were landed -> The troops landed

    I think using the definitive article here would imply that all the troops were landed, and that was not the case.--Ykraps (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Link Island of Walcheren as a whole

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • south-west -> southwest

    As above

  • 5700 -> 5,700

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Link Lillo, Liefkenshoech

    Neither Lillo nor Liefkenshoech have articles to link to. The former town of Lillo is today part of Berendrecht-Zandvliet-Lillo, which is itself part of Antwerp.--Ykraps (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Which country does Phoenix belong to and the type?

    ? She was a French privateer from Bourdeaux, of 18 guns.--Ykraps (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    Perhaps there ought to be a colon in there.--Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Link Genoa

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Vice-Admiral, no need to "-"

    As above

  • Who is Robert Seppings?

    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

‎Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Are you planning on coming back to this? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2016 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)