Talk:HMS Speedy (1782)

Fate

Added info on the apparent fate of Speedy following capture by the French Duncan (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Speedy (1782)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ✽ Familiae Watt§ ^(TALK) 11:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

Reviewing the article against the "quick-fail criteria".

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • - the article seems well sourced with a wide array of reference material.

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • - no obvious NPOV tone to article.

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • - no tags on page.

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • - no edit warring over article.

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • - scope of article clear.

Article meets standards set out in the "quick-fail criteria". Full review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues to address

Below are listed some standout issues that need to be discussed. I will add provressively as I review the article.

• LEAD: is well written, but a little too vague - one or two examples need to be furnished to support statements. SuggestedL

Built at Dover, Speedy spent most of the interwar years serving off the British coast. Transferring to the Mediterranean after the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars, she spent the rest of her career there under a number of notable commanders, winning fame for herself in various engagements and often against heavy odds. Her first commander in the Mediterranean, Charles Cunningham, served with distinction with several squadrons, assisting in the capture of several prizes such as [provide an example]. His successor, George Cockburn, impressed his superiors with his dogged devotion to duty, but Speedy's next commander, George Eyre, had the misfortune to lose her to a superior French force in/at [provide date/location]. She was soon retaken, and re-entered service under Hugh Downman, who captured a number of privateers. [provide some context to this sentence, eg: date, fighting French/Spanish, name of captured vessels] His successor, Jahleel Brenton, fought a number of actions with Spanish forces off Gibraltar, while her last captain, Lord Thomas Cochrane, achieved some of his greatest exploits with her, forcing the surrender of a much larger Spanish warship. [name the warship] Speedy was finally captured by a powerful French squadron and donated to the Papal Navy by Napoleon. She was broken-up in 1807.

The lead should be introductory and not overly detailed, but not vague either. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an otherwise good article, well written. I have fixed some minor issues (little bit of overlinking), but otherwise, once the lead issue is addressed, there should be no problem passing the article. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, as per your suggestion I have added some context to the lead. Benea (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll pass the review. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Main assessment

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Well written. Identified problems addressed.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: PASS ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox needs reworking. Currently, it give the impression that Speedy spent her entire career with the Royal Navy, which is not the case. One question that does need answering is what is the correct flag for the Papal Navy? Is it that of the Vatican, or a different one? Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Using old flag of the Papal States as that is correct for the period. Infobox now expanded to show full career. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy in Fiction?

The sections Cochrane, Speedy and Gamo and Later actions and capture neatly summarize the plot of the book Master and Commander in the Aubrey–Maturin series of novels by Patrick O'Brian, with Jack Aubrey as Cochrane and Sophie as Speedy. Mentioning the fictional counterpart is definitely worth mentioning somewhere, and in my opinion Speedy is more famous in fiction than in real life so it would be nice to mention this somewhere in the article, perhaps a Speedy in Fiction section? Kirk (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the second reference at Master and Commander? - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can get the hardcopy if necessary, also Sea of Words - Google Books version Kirk (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Any in fiction section would need to explicitly follow WP:MILPOP to the letter. -MBK₀₀₄ 14:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be satisfied with a see also to the O'Brian book with a sentence in the lead and the Cochrane section; those changes would be a good start and Sea of Words is an authoritative source for the comparison.

However, Hornblower and the Hotspur also features a ship (HMS Hotspur) very similar to the Speedy and similar encounters and clear parallels between the main character and Cochrane (I don't have a source handy for this comparison). All popular culture sections are problematic but probably this is an example where it would be helpful for the reader and I don't think those two are the only examples of Speedy in Fiction, just the ones I know about. Kirk (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree Kirk, but don't quote me on that since I don't know what I'm talking about :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

About the action of Oropesa

According to Spanish accounts about the event, the convoy was composed by 8 small merchant craft, 3 lightly armed feluccas and a 160-ton, 16-gun privateer xebec. Moreover, it seems that Speedy and Kangaroo failed to achieve their goal, since the Spanish commander, Fernando Dominicis, ordered all his vessels to be driven ashore, where 2 cannons of Oropesa's tower gave them additional cover, contributing to reject the attack. Except two vessels which were taken by the British and later set fire and abandoned (being one of them salvaged by 4 Spanish schooners), the convoy continued its passage unmolested and having lost only 1 sailor killed and another 2 wounded. The account given in the article is very different... ElBufon (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Caprea

Where should the word link? The city of Koper (historically called Caprea)? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Times

A search of The Times digital archives reveals a few more snippets of info on Speedy, including movements and dates. Is this worth adding in?

Can you be more specific with a link? It may be the same thing as Winfield; it might be a different Speedy Kirk (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with The Times is that it's a subscription service. I can access it foc through my Kent County Library card. Depending on where in the UK an editor is, it would be a different link for each county or unitary authority. This link is for those who have paid for a subscription.

A search for "Speedy" from 1-1-1785 to 31-12-1801 returns 96 results. Not all of them refer to HMS Speedy of course, but there appear to be a number of references to her, possibly extending into the teens. There was at least one merchant ship named Speedy during this time. Use {{cite newspaper The Times}} when sourcing from that paper. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Any editor who can access The Times would do well to check for "Speedy" on 24-4-1786, 23-11-1789, 1-4-1791, 17-11-1792, 10-6-1793, 29-7-1795, 5-10-1795, 18-7-1796, 13-11-1797, 31-1-1798, 7-2-1798, 2-4-1798, 23-9-1799, 26-10-1799, 5-8-1801, 7-8-1801, 12-8-1801, 19-10-1801 and 23-11-1801. A search of the London Gazette from 1-1-1781 to 31-12-1801 returns 27 results for the term "Speedy" and "brig". Some of The Times entries listed above refer to the London Gazette, which is a freely accessible website. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources in the article used those sources for their research so I don't know how much value there is in doing this, and of course be aware of WP:Primary;anyways, I looked at a few of the Times entries; 13-11-1797 says Downman captured the Palma off Porto, a 2 gun privateer with 4 swivels, on 18 September 1797, 31-1-1798 he captured another privateer on 16 December 1797, and 7-2-1798 says yet another tiny privateer captured 4 January 1798. Feels like primary research to me...Kirk (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it primary research? The Times is completely independant of the Royal Navy. At the dates mentioned, it was current news. Nowadays, it is a historical record of events. Similarly, The London Gazette is independant of the Royal Navy. Both easily pass WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

When a contemporary newspaper prints a handwritten letter verbatim a day or two after it was received, and those articles are then reprinted in another newspaper a few days later, that second newspaper is still a primary source - its still very close to the events, and hasn't been checked against other sources. Also see WP:Summary - you don't have to cover every single minute detail to write a good article.Kirk (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Peterel or Peterell?

My change of Peterel to Peterell has been undone. The spelling of the ship's name at the time was Peterell (London Gazette). We should not rewrite history by changing names to suit the modern parlance. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS. Spellings were much more flexible in the 18th century than now, and historians know not to take spellings from newspapers of the time as definitive. That's why Wikipedia has a "secondary sources" policy: to remind us that we're not trained as historians, and we need to accept their opinions, rather than reading the original documents and making our own calls. Does anyone have additional scholarly secondary sources that give a spelling? - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone already asked to verify the spelling in the FAC earlier and I did; I checked multiple sources and the spelling matches the source cited. Kirk (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also spelled Peterell in contemporary issues of The Times, such as 20-5-1788. As we're discussing a C18th ship, we should use C18th names. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning - the idea behind WP:PSTS is to rely on professionals to do the synthesis for us; you've decided to do your own research and synthesize a different answer. Dank, additional sources: Source1 source2. Kirk (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning is that we don't change history. Therefore Greenwich was in Kent if we are talking about dates before 1888. Liverpool and Manchester were in Lancashire until 1974. We use historic flags where appropriate, instead of defaulting to the current one. Changing names to modern spellings, to my mind, comes under this. College is as reliable source as Winfield, is he not? Therefore we have a modern secondary source using the contemporary name, as well as the reporting in contemporary newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No my point is that what we do not have here is a contemporary spelling and a modern spelling. We have two alternative spellings. Churchill's The life of Lord Viscount Nelson, duke of Bronté, published in 1808, used Peterel, as does a volume of the Universal Magazine published in 1796. Nelson, in his dispatches, uses Peterel on a number of occasions, and he'd be one to know since she was under his orders at the time. Some modern sources use one version of the spelling, some use the other. Benea (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. If Nelson used both spellings then maybe a note in this article re the alternative spelling would suffice. The issue of the naming of the ship can be fully covered when an article is created on the ship. Mjroots (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not as clear a situation as saying we have an eighteenth-century spelling that has been changed to suit contemporary spelling. Colledge uses Peterell for this craft, and Peterel for all others, Winfield uses Peterel. This is a similar situation to HMS Hinchinbrook (1778). When I wrote that article I did some careful research into the spelling, as variations existed, not just in contemporary accounts but also modern scholarship. Hinchinbroke, Hinchinbrooke, Hinchingbroke, Hinchingbrook and Hinchingbrooke all appear, though Hinchinbrook predominates slightly, hence the current title. Spellings were flexible at the time, as long as we are consistent in the text, we can deal with it if necessary with a note, a la Hinchinbrook. Benea (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a note is necessary in this case; maybe if the article for that ship ever gets created beyond a stub it could be noted, or maybe a note in the DAB article, since its HMS Peterel, and using that spelling for the first two versions, and cites Colledge. Kirk (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia

So Lord Cochrane was appointed in March 1800, and in May 1800 he was involved in actions near Italy. But the article about George Caley, the botanist, claims he arrived at Sydney on this ship in April 1800. Now speedy as it may be, this ship cannot sail from Europe to Australia and back in two months. So something is wrong here.Eregli bob (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Could well be a different Speedy. Do you have a citation that would enable me to do some follow-up research? Acad Ronin (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No question that it's a different Speedy, this one was never in Australia. The link was made here by Granitethighs (talk · contribs), changing it from the plain Speedy, which is another ship just of the same name, in existence in the same time period. There was another HMS Speedy (1798) in existence in 1800, he could just as well have linked to that one, and then have you wonder how that ship ever left the Great Lakes. The relevant entry in the adb has the same wording - 'Caley sailed from Plymouth in the Speedy, arrived in Sydney in April 1800'. It's a ship named Speedy, it's most likely this one - Speedy (1779), which is recorded as having arrived in Sydney on 15 April 1800. Another good example of how a little basic research when making links in the first place will avoid confusion. Benea (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Great job!

Great job making this a featured article! I'm a big P O'B fan so I got really excited when I saw the ship that inspired the Sophie on the main page - just wanted to let y'all know I appreciated your work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in HMS Speedy (1782)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of HMS Speedy (1782)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WR":

• From French frigate Sérieuse (1779): Wifield and Roberts (2015), p.125.
• From Action of 31 May 1796: Winfield and Roberts (2015 forthcoming), Chap. 9.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Large pockets : question

Seven pieces of four-pounder shot in his pockets

Cochrane has the largest and the strongest pockets in the world, to carry fourteen kilos of metal in his trousers... Is this really serious or is this an old marine joke ? Or maybe i didn't understand the term "pockets"...--Sammyday (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The page does not say that it is in his trousers. Most likely in the pockets of his coat. The year is 1800. And the fact (true or not) was notable enough to have been noted. So, yes this is serious.--Joe McNeill (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"French ship Saint Pierre" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect French ship Saint Pierre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#French ship Saint Pierre until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)