Talk:USS Chesapeake (1799)

New Information on First War of 1812 Cruise

The Hampton Roads Naval Museum recently completed a survey of Chesapeake's first War of 1812 cruise and published it in its journal. We have confirmed six captures, four British, one recaptured American, and one American ship trading under a British license. Sources include a journal from Evan's clerk, newspapers, and Evans' report to Secretary Jones. The ship stopped several more but found them either to be neutrals or American ships. I have edited the War of 1812 section to reflect this new information. See more at [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcal1971 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a really excellent piece of new information which I will incorporate into the article. In the meantime if you could refrain from changing the structure of the article and removing or moving the citations that already exist it would be a great help to me as I prepare this article to eventually reach FA status. --Brad (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed

• The figurehead for Chesapeake was formerly located outside the main administration offices of Olau Line in the old Royal Naval Dockyard of Sheerness, but was damaged by the Medway Ports Authority during a move in 1991.

I have not been able to find a reference for this. If we find one it can go back in. --Brad (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fictionalized accounts of the battle appear in the novel The Fortune of War by Patrick O'Brian, and The Key to Honor by Ron Wattanja. It is discussed briefly, with reference to the court martial of Third Lieutenant William Sitgreaves Cox, in Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers. This engagement also became the subject of a well-known British sea shanty, "The Chesapeke and the Shannon".

Fictionalized accounts of Chesapeake are .. well.. fictional. I don't see any value in adding this to the article as it provides no additional information about the ship itself. --Brad (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi

I am going to ask another more experienced copyeditor to check my work as this is an A class article and I am not that experienced at copyediting to that high a level.

A couple of points did arise though which may need checking:

Quasi-War

• "In March, Josiah Fox was reprimanded" - unclear as to which year this was as previous sentence talk of May 1800: 1799, 1800 or 1801.
• "Chesapeake first put to sea on 22 May commanded" - unclear as to year, probably 1800 as per previous para and next sentence referring to 1800 and 1800 resp.
• "she joined a squadron patrolling off the southern coast of the United States and in the West Indies escorting American merchant ship" - Was the squadron mission "escorting American merchant ships" in both areas, if so I would have moved that phrase to "joined a squadron escorting American merchant ships which was patrolling off the"

Once I establish a year I do not repeat it until the year changes. I removed one instance of a repeated "1800" which should not have been there. I'm looking out for more I may have missed. Brad (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

First Barbary War

• "burn Tripolitan ships" - I have added a link to Tripolitan to try and better explain the relationship between the city and the state. I hope this is ok, if not of course remove it.

Chesapeake–Leopard Affair

• "The English minister to the United States" - unsure what this is, is it an ambassador or similar?

The equivalent of an ambassador, yes. Brad (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "she completed provisioning and loading armaments." - I tried changing it to "completed provisioning and armament." as well as linking it. Unfortunately it seems that the db page for provisioning is woefully inadequate as I believe there should be a general "Provisioning (ship)" but instead only (cruise ship) is there. The links for armament are similarly compromised, redirecting straight to weapon rather than the more correct "preparing of weapons and stockpiling" I was expecting. Perhaps linking to Wiktionary may be used instead?
• "In Norfolk, word of the incident" - I added "Norfolk, Virginia," as many may read this from the UK and, although it might be assumed that the US shipping yard in Virginia is implied, it is not perhaps that well know (unless an avid NCIS or JAG watcher).

War of 1812

• "and they were daily leaving the ship." - I suspect this should be "and were leaving the ship in daily increasing numbers." or similar?

Yes. Brad (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Parties defending both Humphreys and Fox ... carried on for years." I am sure this does not really mean "there were parties held" but am uncertain as to how this should be worded.
  • I substituted the word "arguments" for "parties" --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Dont<!-- this is correct in context --> give up the ship!" does not tally with the ref given afterwards, and the hidden message seems a little strange as what context it is referred to remains unclear from the ref cited? I have updated the ref to point to [2] which seems to cover it.
• "The phrase is still used in the US Navy today as displayed on the" - the ref does not seem say that as it is the history of the battle rather than saying anything about the current flag.
• Halifax/Chesapeake Mill/Greenwich were unclear as to which country so I have added Nova Scotia/England/England and links. The section discusses England returning to US etc. so I feel clarity is needed on which these were.

The Legacy section upon review needs more work by me. Some of the entries don't need to be there and there are others I should add. Best to ignore it for now. Brad (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

General

• Use of U.S. v US should be standardised. Also "American" is used, something which I believe should be considered being changed to US/U.S. as the term strictly refers to the whole continents of North, Central and South America (and any I have missed?).
  •  Fixed Chicago 16th edition deprecates the use of the periods so I am changing it to US throughout. I did not change instances of "American" --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks Diannaa for going over the article. I haven't been as attentive as I should but this article has been the bane of my existence for several years now. It's been difficult to collect all the conflicting sources and attempt to make some sense of them for the average reader. Brad (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid and I are done with copy edits for now. If you want another go-round after you rework any of the material, please let us know. Good luck with your FA bid. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Name - why?

So why was the name of this ship so different from the others? What was the reason? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wood

According to tv, she was built of pine/douglas fir, which was cheaper. The splintering of the fir (as opposed to oak) was believed to have helped create the body count in the battle with the Shannon. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on USS Chesapeake (1799). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030083543/http://www.chesapeakemill.co.uk/historypdf001.pdf to http://www.chesapeakemill.co.uk/historypdf001.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/05/18/the-real-shameful-story-behind-don-give-ship/AVYGogGB9gtXrydeyRx1BP/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/collections/2009/04/21/dont_give_up_the_ship/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://marinecurator.blogspot.ca/2013/05/an-artifact-from-heart-of-deadly-war-of.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/hrnm/files/daybook/pdfs/volume13issue2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Chesapeake (1799). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6JtaEBJN8?url=http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/collections/2009/04/21/dont_give_up_the_ship/ to http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/collections/2009/04/21/dont_give_up_the_ship/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Article scheduled for TFA

This is to let people know that this article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 2, 2019, and specifically notifying the FA nominator(s), Brad1010. It would be helpful if someone checked the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad ping, it's Brad101, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brad101 (talk · contribs) and other interested editors. This is to let you know that as a part of preparing this article for TFA I will be lightly running an eye over it for MoS-compliance and grammar, and possibly tweaking a little of the language to ensure that it is at it's very best for its appearance on the main page. If you have any queries about any of the edits don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Keel and Beam dimensions

"Joshua Humphreys' design was long on keel and narrow of beam (width) to allow for the mounting of very heavy guns."

I would think that it would be the opposite - that a wide beam (width) would allow for the mounting of heavier guns. Comments? Seki1949 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Formatting ship name “HMS Chesapeake”

The British name for the ship, HMS Chesapeake, shows up in bold face. Perhaps it should be italicized, but not bold. When I came across this I made a brief effort to fix it but it’s tricky because quotes are wanted around the ship name. consequently, I am leaving it for someone with more experience. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ship names are always in italics (though some class names aren't), and this applies to the ship's name anywhere in the article. In articles about a ship, the ship's name is also bolded in the opening/lead sentence, but not anywhere else in the article after that. Take a look at some of the articles at List of current ships of the United States Navy and United States Coast Guard Cutter for examples. Hope this helps. - wolf 03:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)