Talk:HMS Blanche (1800)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Blanche (1800)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I will take a gander at this one in due course. Zawed (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Having look at this, comments as follow:

Lead

• She began service in 1800 under...: suggest stating commissioned rather than began service; from the main body, it seems she wasn't finished off until early 1801 so didn't become operational (which I correlate to beginning service) until that time.

• Done.

Design

• The original Apollo design was then revived at...; because this ship was part of the original three Apollo vessels built, it seems to me to make more sense to write this in future tense, i.e "The original Apollo design would be revived at..." (or later was).

• Done.

Construction

• Complimenting this armament...: think that should be 'Complementing'

• Changed.

Service

• taking the member of parliament Nicholas Vansittart to the British Minister to Denmark, William Drummond, so ...: I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, but I think it would make more sense if it was "British Minister for Denmark, William Drummond,"?

• Reworded in a way that keeps "British Minister to Denmark", which I believe is a title.

• In preparation to make the attack on...: for antecedence, I think that should be "In preparation to make an attack on..."

• Done.

• ...bomb ships to a position in which they...: suggest "...bomb ships to a position from which they..."

• Done.

• In the night of 1 April...: suggest "During the night of 1 April..."

• Done.

• Mudge decided to attack Albion again, this time in the night of 3–4 November...: as above, suggest during for "in"

• Done.

• Mudge reported Lake rather than Nicolls as the victor of the battle, leading the naval historian William James to suggest Lake was a favourite of the captain's, despite Clowes describing him as "a thoroughly worthless officer".[24]: the cite here is to Clowes, although the section of text refers to William James; is Clowes stating James' view or is there a missing cite here? Also may be worth mentioning that James was a relatively contemporary historian, writing only 20 years or so after the events (see further comment later)

• Clowes mentions James.

• captured a 1-gun privateer schooner.: just a single gun? i.e. making sure there isn't a missing number here!

• Yep. Just one! Likely that there were a number of swivel guns, but these weren't counted in the number.

• as she manoeuvred so the French vessel...: don't think that so should be there, a comma seems more appropriate?

• My wording does make sense, but I agree it's confusing if you're not reading it in my 18th century-addled brain. Changed.

• James has questioned how truthful Mudge...: tied into my earlier comment on James, is it worth openly mention James is writing only 20 years or so after the engagement?

• Added a word on this.

Other stuff

• Happy to AGF on sources given history of nominator
• Put the 1999 Gardiner ref ahead of the 2000 one

• Done.

• Image tags all OK
• No dupe links

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: Hi, thanks for having a look at this. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This looks all satisfactory to me so am passing as GA, as I believe that it meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)