Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Aigle (1801)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2022 [1].

HMS Aigle (1801)

edit
Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fifth-rate sailing frigate that served in the Royal Navy at the tail end of the French Revolutionary wars and throughout the Napoleonic war. She took part in some notable actions and campaigns, including the controversial Battle of Basque Roads and the disastrous Walcheren campaign. As can be seen from the edit history, I have done a not inconsiderable amount of work to the article since it became a Good Article in 2016. I have looked at the criteria for featured article and humbly believe it meets them. I am sure, however, that it can be improved and look forward to suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Ping me if I haven't started by Thursday. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the action off Groix; will get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. I am away this weekend and may not be able to attend to this promptly but will as soon as I return. Thanks for taking the trouble to review.--Ykraps (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

Lead

  • "HMS Aigle was a 36-gun, fifth-rate frigate of the Royal Navy." 'British' needs to be in there somewhere; there were several navies which were royal.
    Added, although it seems unnecessary as other royal navies aren't called Royal Navy. I wouldn't expect to see Nederlands added to Koninklijke Marine, which by logical extension should be the case. Also, strictly speaking, the Royal Navy isn't British, it belongs to the Crown.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in April 1803 to press recruits." What is your basis for using "press" as a verb?
    It's both a noun and a verb, [[3]] and routinely used as such in sources: "...to deliberately press men" [[4]], "...to press any Englishman" [[5]], "...to press the people" [[6]] --Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "patrolling the English Channel for enemy warships and merchant vessels." "for" seems a bit unclear; at first reading it suggests 'on behalf of'. Possibly state what Aigle was actually doing?
    Done. Changed to "trying to keep the English Channel free of enemy warships and merchant vessels". --Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing the other ashore." into a harbour or wrecking it?
    It usually means to force aground but yeah, I get it sounds ambiguous. Changed to 'forcing the other onto the shore'.--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aigle fought the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809" → 'Aigle fought at the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809'.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809". Is the precise date known?
    It was a series of actions which occurred between 11–24 April. Added April. --Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fireships". Usually "the" is only used about something which has already been properly introduced. Also, the current phrasing conveys little or no information to a reader. Consider either deleting or expanding.
    Added a bit more. [[7]] --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then forcing the surrender of the stranded French ships, Varsovie and Aquilon." It may be me, but that comma looks odd.
    I don't think it's wrong in British English but may be a little old fashioned.--Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. On reflection, I'm not sure that is correct usage. --Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Basque Roads and the Walcheren Campaign: perhaps mention where, geographically, each took place? Maybe mention that one was naval battle and the other a land campaign. Maybe mention who won the former, as you do the latter?
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and the other a land campaign" ?
I've used the term amphibious to indicate this was both a land and sea operation (the bombardment of Flushing for example). --Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British forces withdrew in September". This only really makes sense if a reader has already been informed that it was an amphibious operation.
    Not sure I agree; one can withdraw from land and naval battles. --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But in this case it refers to a land force.
I think this has been settled by my answer above but let me know if you disagree. --Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That reads "where she was converted to a coal hulk and receiving ship". Ie simultaneously, not sequentially. I admit that the former seems a bit improbable, but I am AGF that it reflects the source.
Ah, I see. She was dual purpose. I've clarified in the main body and altered the lead to agree. --Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before being used as a target for torpedoes". The main article mentions a singular torpedo.
    It didn't when the lead was written. I've rewritten the corresponding article text. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thus far. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Are you still intending to add to this? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have responded to all of my comments I will go through your responses, which may or may not lead to further comments from me. Once we have settled those I will do another read through which again may or may not lead to further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body

  • "Aigle was the first of two Aigle-class frigates". Any chance of an in line explanation of what a frigate is, per MOS:NOFORCELINK? ("as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
    There already is a description in the section, which I've now moved nearer the start. --Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Battle of Lagos I describe them as "smaller and faster than ships of the line and primarily intended for raiding, reconnaissance and messaging"; would something similar be possible?
Added. --Ykraps (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
Neat.
I usually footnote this as "A ship's "colours", a national flag or battle ensign, are hauled down from her mast, or "struck", to indicate that the ship has surrendered. (Wilhelm, 1881, p. 148)"
Okay, I've stolen your footnote but used my own reference to save adding more sources. --Ykraps (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to repeat "prize", but up to you.
Okay, changed. --Ykraps (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four merchant vessels and the cargoes of 15 others were ... After driving the 20-strong convoy ashore". Four plus 15 ≠ 20.
    "Four merchant vessels and the cargoes of 15 others were captured". One was not captured. "The remaining vessels could not be taken off, having been scuttled by their crews, and so were destroyed". --Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In accordance with Surveyor of the Navy, Robert Seppings". Why the comma?
    Removed. --Ykraps (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only went to sea after as armée en flute or store-ship". I am not entirely sure that I follow this. Also it seems to suggest that armée en flute is the same thing as a store-ship.
    James does not expand on his theory but presumably he is assuming that she was so badly damaged, she was of no further use as a warship. My reasons for including the footnote were that it was quite interesting and also, possibly, stops readers questioning which ship was which. But I’m quite happy to remove it as it’s not entirely necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the footnote, is "after" a typo for 'either'? And link en flûte.
Ah, gotcha. No, after in this case refers to post engagement. I've rewritten to incorporate 'either' so as to reinforce that this was an either/or thing and not that they were one and the same. --Ykraps (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Does not include shares for property captured during the Walcheren Campaign." What are shares in this context?
    Shares of the prize money for the capture of property during the campaign. Aigle had no direct involvement in these captures but was entitled to a share simply by being part of the campaign. I've tried to clarify this in the footnote but if you think it's too confusing, I can simply remove. --Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it for a first pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good. A few further comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe support

edit
You've done what I was hoping for. I would, by the way, consider the NC a book. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back later to add more. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several examples of unnecessary repetition of the year in dates throughout
    Removed. --Ykraps (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide how you're going to introduce ships, e.g. for RN vessels you sometimes include HMS and sometime don't, and sometimes include the guns on a ship and sometime don't
    I've added the number of guns and the prefix in the first instance only. The MOS says that the prefix should be used on the first mention but omitted thereafter. Where there is a list it is not necessary repeat the prefix because HMS in that case stand for His Majesty's Ships. It is also (I think) the convention to use the ship type on first mention but this is only written in the MOS in reference to article naming. [[9]] [[10]] Nor is it clear how the ships should be described. I use gun numbers because I consider them the most useful but I'm happy to describe Aigle, for example, as a frigate, a fifth rate or of 36 guns. --Ykraps (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just copy and paste that in as it is. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Zuid-Beveland
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Marshall Aigle was in Lord William Stuart's squadron at Walcheren, and the explosion occurred on 11 August
    Yeah, per James too. Sloppy of me. Bad weather caused delays and the marking of the channel was not completed til 9th then further delays before the squadron moved up river on 11th. Must have glanced at the wrong date. Rewritten to reflect that. --Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add that the bombardment of Flushing was from both land and sea, it wasn't just the ships. (Martin Howard, Walcheren 1809, etc)
    Okay, done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Lillo. You might also use Liefkenshoektunnel for Liefkenshoech, but I realise that's pretty awkward
    Done Lillo but Liefkenshoech tunnel seems a bit tenuous. --Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dykes
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preface Louis with his rank
    Okay, done. --Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a big gap between September 1809 and October 1811. Suggest adding the capture of Phoenix to the main text - Marshall has a good description of it
    Are you referring to Marshall, John (1828). Royal Naval Biography. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green. OCLC 1111834724.? If so, whose biography? Is it any better than the description given in the Gazette here?[[11]] --Ykraps (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfe's biography here. The description is similar but worded differently; I'll leave it up to you what sources you choose to use. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add that Aigle only goes to the Mediterranean on 20 November
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that Winfield has Aigle paid off in 1813?
    Yeah, I found it difficult to reconcile that with other sources so left it out. I think it unlikely that she returned home, paid off and was then recommissioned under the same captain and returned to the Med. Possibly a typo for 1815? --Ykraps (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the correct form. In a nutshell, Clarence is the younger son of a marquess. His older brother, the heir, gets a subsidiary title and in this case was Lord Paget and then Lord Uxbridge. Clarence, and his other lesser siblings, have the honorary title Lord/Lady before their names, but have no title to hand down to their children. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gardiner (Heavy Frigate p. 89) has Aigle's draught forward as 17 ft and aft 19 ft 4 in. Sailing reports were also make on her on 15 August 1815, which describe her as "Generally similar to Apollo, being fast and weatherly, manoeuvrable and a good sea-boat. Recorded 10kts close-hauled in a topgallant gale and had gone faster (10 1/2 kts) in a stronger whole topsail wind; 12kts with the wind a point abaft the beam was best regular performance. Very roomy but no information on how they stowed 6 months' victuals" (tests having been done with 4 months).
    I assume you'd like some of this added but before I do so, can you clarify whether the quoted text is from Gardiner's own mouth or the author of the sailing report? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Believe that it's a summary of a sailing report written up in Gardiner's own words. You don't have to discuss it all, some might work better in a class article, but at least a mention of her characteristics/speed would be good. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have one eye toward an Aigle-class article but have added a bit. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Franchise captured by Aigle is Franchise, but our article paints her capture a little differently which might be worth looking into
    Several of the sources say the fleet was "in company". Being in sight was considered being actively involved because it was believed to effect the behaviour of a chase and it was perfectly normal for the prize money to be shared under these circumstances. Whereas it is possible that the fleet had an agreement to share prizes, (this was sometimes done because some vessels had more opportunities than others) I don’t think it was the case here. In addition to the already mentioned "in company", several captures made in the same month by other members of the fleet, do not appear to have been shared. Erring on the side of caution, I have added "Continuing to patrol in home waters with the Channel Fleet, Aigle shared in the prize money for..." --Ykraps (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first run through complete. Might have more once you've finished with these. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Just a few points I need clarifying before I can proceed. Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: Have replied above, nudge me if I've missed any queries. Re the confusing Winfield dates/numbers, it might be worth asking him on his talk page. I agree that it might be unwise to include them while there's some uncertainty. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have provided the answers I needed and I've added to the article accordingly. I have sent Rif Winfield an email. Hopefully he can shed some light on those figures and I can add those bits too. --Ykraps (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have spoken to Rif and he is certain that Aigle paid off in 1813. He isn't sure of when exactly but, in light of the info in the Gazette, thinks it must have been in the latter half of the year. The figure of 990 is also correct. Aigle was not cut down, only her quarter deck and fo'c'sle were removed so would not affect the measurements used to calculate her tonnage. The slight increase in size, he thinks, is due to her sides bulging through settlement. I have added these bits of information to the article. Rif also gave some extra information which because of referencing issues, can't currently be used. If we can find a way to source it correctly, it can be added at a later date but unfortuneatly that can't be done in time for this review. --Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Alright. Some final quibbles from me:
  • Link Cochrane's rank in the lede
  • Remove the trailing zero in the depth of hold figures
  • "upper gun deck" - this suggests Aigle had more than one gun deck, which she didn't
  • Gundeck or dun deck? Differs between text and infobox
  • Bow draught doesn't need an inches figure
  • at the stern
  • Remove italics from quotation
  • Link Franchise in main text, and can note as a 40-gun frigate
  • Still some issues with ship descriptions, e.g. Magnificent doesn't get anything, Gertrude gets "12-gun HM hired armed schooner", and Naiad just gets "36-gun"
  • Okay, I've made a few fixes including Magnificent and Naiad, although I would humbly suggest the latter's RN status could be inferred and therefore, the prefix isn't necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you sometimes drop the "HMS" when listing RN ships?
  • The guidelines say that the prefix should be used on the first use only and omitted thereafter. However, "The prefix need not be given if it is obvious from context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS")". In addition, an HMS at the front of a list could stand for His Majesty's ships (plural). I also try to avoid using HMS when the vessel in question isn't a fully-rigged-ship as that would technically be incorrect usage. I do, of course, make mistakes so if I've missed anything else, please let me know. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capturing one gun boat" one non-hyphened gun-boat has slipped through
  • Main text doesn't have anything for 1806, suggest adding the detention of Jonge Brouwer
  • I'm not sure what I could write other than she was detained. It appears that Aigle's crew got some prize money so perhaps some contraband was confiscated but this isn't obvious from the source. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the 28 June"
  • "74-gun HMS Pembroke and the 44-gun Alcmene,"
  • You use both Ville de Varsovie and Varsovie, better to stick to one or the other
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Is there a reason why you treat Clarke (1809) as an 1809 publication, with the fact that it's a reprint noted in the edition field, but for Clowes give the reprint date as the publication date, and use orig-year to indicate that it's a reprint? There are a couple of other examples of one or other of these approaches in the list of references. Is there any reason not to make these consistent?
    No. Just a bit of sloppy copy and paste rather than writing them out again. Done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing publisher location for Demerliac (2004).
    Done. Added Nice, France. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the publisher locations that are not widely known (i.e. London & Oxford are well-known but Barnsley is not) suggest giving the country as part of the location field.
    Okay, done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry (2004) and Henderson(2011) are out of alphabetical order.
    Good spot, done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you comment on the use of the older sources? I'm aware that naval history does sometimes use older material, but can you confirm the reliability (in the eyes of modern naval historians) of Clarke, Clowes, James, Marshall, Morgan, and O'Byrne?
    They are, per Wikipedia, reliable secondary and tertiary sources, and are routinely commented on by more modern historians such as Lambert, Hore and Gardiner. And, I believe, Lambert wrote the forward to many of the reprints. In addition, they are used to support facts only, not to bolster an opinion or a point of view. Fairly sure they are standard reference for articles on this subject, including some featured ones. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes and replies all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi although I know the interests of the three MilHist reviewers are pretty diverse, I'd feel more comfortable if someone outside the MilHist fraternity could give this the once-over to help ensure accessibility to the wider audience. Mike or Tim, would either of you have a bit of time for this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't get to it for at least three or four days, so I'll defer to Tim if he's available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I write in the MilHist community, you are the only editor here that I know. I have the standard American ignorance of European history; I do not recognize a single one of the campaigns noted. My knowledge of sailing vessels is pretty much limited to info gained from the Hornblower novels. So, do I satisfy your want ad for a "naive" volunteer reviewer?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George, pls go for it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SUPPORT from Georgejdorner

edit

At times, I may comment on an item not realizing it is acceptable British usage. A reply of "British English" will suffice for me to strike the comment.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and armament

No infelicities found.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service

Para 3 - What type of ships were Charente and Joie?
Charente was a fully-rigged-ship and joie, a brig. Added. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you mean, were they warxhips or merchant ships? --Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are obviously warships. Additions appreciated.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action off Groix

Para 2 - Mentioning the French frigates' names will enhance the readability of the para. The reader also needs the nationality or identity of the grounding frigate to clarify the action.
The names, Italienne and Sirene, and nationality are given in the opening sentence. Was that missed or do you want them repeated somewhere? The identity of the grounded frigate isn't known and this is explained in a footnote but I could weave that into the text if necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The names are indeed mentioned in the opening sentence of para 1. However, I find para 2 vague and ambiguous.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Basque Roads

Para 2, 2nd sentence - It is my understanding that a ship would be anchored on springs to allow it a greater field of fire. Did that advantage come into play in this battle? Is that why the British ships anchored in a crescent?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that the French ships grounded side on, hence the need for springs. Without them, the tide would have held the British ships bow on to their targets, unable to present their broadside. Unfortunately the sources go into such detail and the precise reason isn't given. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in sources, then that's the end of it.
However, common sense dictates the ability to shift the direction of gunnery fire as an obvious advantage.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walcheren Campaign

Para 2, 4th sentence - Something's missing here. What is the significance of the 5,700 French troops?Georgejdorner (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was under French control. Now added. --Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, reinforcements. I see now.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Wikipedia's Napoleonic wars article lists Nederlands as a British ally, which may have been true of the government in exile but not the Dutch people, who, in the main, were on the side of the French. --Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which facts were previously known to me, ignorant Yankee that I am.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para - Is the Phoenix a privateer then? Or is she a seaborne mercenary?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a mercenary is paid irrespective whereas a privateer takes a share of the spoils if there are any. Is she described as a mercenary? --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading, I came upon mention of the letter of marque, which means she was a privateer. Comment struck.

Mediterranean Service

First para - Are the types known for the scuttled ships?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Again, sources don't say. --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war and fate
Postwar fate?

The hyphen is an Engvar thing. I like the post-war fate suggestion but the style seems to be to have a section about the ship's fate. I've changed to post-war service and ... --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Engvar is obviously correct here. However, it's the 'and' that I was questioning as superfluous. Your change makes this moot.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1, sentences 3 & 4 - Is there any connection behind this shipyard renovation and the frigate's earlier battle damage in the same location?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more likely to be wear and tear caused by the length of time at sea but sources don't say. --Ykraps (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no source, no fact(s).Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para - How can a sunken ship be sold off and scrapped?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She would have been recovered first. I believe the waters to have been shallow enough to make this worthwhile. Added as much as I can without straying into OR territory. --Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, she had to be salvaged. I just thought that might be more info lurking in your sources.Georgejdorner (talk)

Prizes

Is it possible to differentiate between full or partial prizes?
Table is very nicely done.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because sources aren't always terribly clear on that point, there is a danger of accidentally entering into OR. --Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can only go as far as your sources take you.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Para 2, sentence 2 - Should more accurately read, "...Aigle went on to help force the surrender of the stranded ships-of-the-line..." if the description in the main text is to be believed.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: A very informative article, one containing a great depth of fact without becoming overwhelming. I found little to comment upon, and to even pick those nits I really had to chase the dog.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: Thanks for doing this. I have answered your queries but there are a couple of points you may want to discuss further. --Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was quite satisfied by your answers. I'm voting Support.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Aigle_(1801)/archive1&oldid=1118960733"