Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/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) 13:18, 19 August 2016 [1].

HMS Emerald (1795)

edit
Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 36-gun frigate of the Royal Navy which served with distinction during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Since becoming a good article in August last year, additional information has been incorporated and I have given it a thorough copy edit and checked all sources for possible copyright violation. I believe it is now as complete as reliable sources will allow and that it satisfies the criteria (IMHO) Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for your suggestion. I have enlarged to 300px. Is that about right, do you think? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ykraps. For the benefit of readers that rely on special image sizes, please use our image scaling parameter instead of hardcoding the image size. The scale for 300px would approximately be upright=1.36
Remove 300px, and replace it with upright=1.36 (between two vertical bars). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. I have never come across that before. If I can find where it is I will read up on it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax

Sorry for the delay here; I intend to come back to this but real life is a little hectic. Should be able to revisit properly very shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for your edits.--Ykraps (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkingfax: The review is further along. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I'll start making comments, but don't edit the article yet please, I'm working on it.
  • "a Spanish treasure fleet was", "The British fleet under George Elphinstone were": check the article for consistency on was/were after "fleet".
    Done - Just the one instance, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a number of": search for this throughout; there's some evidence that it's ambiguous, at least as used on Wikipedia. Delete it, or say "several", or be more specific. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - Changed one and deleted another. The precise 'number of' is given later anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 74-gun Leviathan, the admiral's flagship, Swiftsure and a small fireship, Incendiary.": Is that two, three or four ships? Be careful with the wording in your lists.
    There were four ships including Emerald. I see what you mean and hopefully I have now made it clear.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, copyediting this is giving me a headache so I'm going to stop at Caribbean service, about halfway. Hopefully someone will pick up the copyediting from there. I may come back and support later on. It's engagingly written. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your edits and I am sorry it gave you a headache. I reverted one change here as it is more usual to say sail when talking about ships. Or perhaps it's a dialect thing. I'll double check.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm pretty sure it's not limited to a particular dialect. The most high profile example I can think of is at the Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797) where Robert Calder and Benjamin Hallowell count Spanish ships as they appear.[2] Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "ships"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a substitute for sail? I'm not sure. I try to avoid using 'ship' as it had a very specific meaning during this period of history whereas 'sail' is a nondescript term for any unidentified ocean going vessel and is routinely used in history books. Where I've used ship as a generic term, I have tried to make this clear by including a description or link to the vessel in question.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    vessel, craft? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Either could work. I have rewritten the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All the edits since mine look great. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigadier-general", "Lieutenant-colonel": Hyphenation can vary a bit; I really can't say if this is okay at FAC or not.
    Hi Dank, can you elaborate here? I've scanned the article but can't see what you mean by hyphen variation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't mean it varies in your article, I meant it varies in the wild, so maybe your usage is fine ... but I rarely see those two with a hyphen in military history articles on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say, it's an Engvar thing but having checked the three dictionaries I have to hand:The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) and Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198610571. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help) both hyphenate; Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) does not. So yes it does seem to vary but providing it doesn't vary within the article, I assume it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the commas (I think) down to Caribbean service, but the comma usage continues to be substandard after that, and I hope someone will fix the commas before this gets promoted.
  • Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support. I hope I can sort out your remaining niggles. Best--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Euryalus

  • Nicely detailed, and it's about time there were more featured articles about eighteenth century ships. I have a bunch of comments, so these are a starting point only. Please consider my comments in the light of my justified reputation for pedantry.

Lead, first paragraph

  • Consider “was a 36-gun” instead of “one of the 36-gun” as the current wording suggests the reader is either familiar with Amazon-class vessels, or that Emerald was one of the ones with 36-guns as compared to ones with other numbers.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that all the Amazon's were 36-gun but I take your point and have changed as per your suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove “there” in last sentence, as redundant.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Jervis was a knight, but his role in this context was as an admiral – consider changing the honorific.
    Done - again I take your point, although I have referred to him later on as "Admiral" John Jervis. Is the repetition okay do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, second paragraph

  • Suggest rewording second sentence as “In 1797 ’’Emerald’’ was one of ... the crippled Spanish flagship Santisima Trinidad which had managed to escape from the British victory at the Battle of Cape St Vincent.” Reasons: it doesn’t imply Emerald was at the Battle, it notes why the Spanish ship was important, and it gives a year to add context to the paragraph above.
    Done - yes, much better. I'm afraid my leads are always a bit weak. I write them last to ensure that they summarise nicely but by that time my mind is wandering onto my next project.--Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise “Admiral” in “Rear-Admiral” – lower case is generic but this refers to a specific person and should be capitalised (in the same way as commodore as a rank and Commodore John Smith as an individual)
    Done - I was of the opinion that when hyphenated, only the first part should be capitalised but as this has come up before and having failed to find a single example to support my position, I've come to the conclusion that I'm wrong!--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, third paragraph

  • Wikilink “western approaches” as it may not be a commonly recognised term. The eighteenth century western approaches was larger and more southerly than the one mapped in our article on it, but it is close enough to be of value as a link.
    Done - I initially chose not to link for the very reason you have given above but your argument has some merit.--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What we need is someone with an enthusiasm for both eighteenth century maritime history and obscure marine geography, who can expand that article and avoid this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed we do.

Construction section

  • Instead of “one of the first” ‘’Amazon’’-class frigates, how about “the second of four.”
    I wrote that sentence in that way because, as she was ordered and laid down at the same time as Amazon, I considered Emerald to be joint first. She was launched a little later though (27 days) so I suppose she was second.--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go at the entire section. See what you think now.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many decimal places in the construction dimensions, suggest reducing to a single decimal place as the text is currently too precise for an eighteenth century craft.
    There is a parameter one can add to the template to restrict the number of decimal places but can't find where it is for the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence – the Winfield ref says she was copper sheathed at Woolwich, which was completed by 12 October. This isn’t really fit-out, which needs only to have occurred before she sailed for the Mediterranean in January 1797. To come closest to the reference, suggest changing fit-out to copper sheathing in this sentence.
    Done - I may have obtained that info from another source but it should agree with the reference cited so I have changed it pending further investigation.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out tonnes burthen in the section, instead of using (bm)
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not essential, but consider adding the names of the remaining two Amazon's, either in the text or as a note. Winfield notes these two were built from fir – do we know what Emerald was principally made from? Am assuming oak, and could probably hunt this down for you if you think it adds anything. Otherwise, up to you but I wonder whether it might be better to remove the reference to fir for the remaining vessels as it begs the question on timbers for the subject of this article.
    As there wasn't an article on Amazon-class, I thought it might be useful to include a bit about other Amazon's so I'd like to keep it if possible. Any info you have on it would be a bonus. I have added a note regarding the names as you suggested. Further thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking re oak/fir for first pair. Footnote looks good on the second pair - I wonder if the apostrophe is in the right place? Not an area I am expert in, it just looks odd the way it is. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't be there at all. I have removed it.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean service section

  • Winfield and Clowes both spell the captain’s name “Berkeley” – obviously spellings were variable at the time, just highlighting this to make sure we have the most common usage.
    Done - I think that spelling came from another book but again I have changed to agree with the source used.--Ykraps (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph is too long – consider a break after “nearby Lagos Bay with other vessels.”
    Done - good suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listing of vessels sent to pursue Santimisima Trinidad - sentence is a bit long, doesn’t explain that ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ was the Spanish flagship, and as a minor syntax issue suggests Jervis issued the orders to the frigates themselves, rather than the crew. How about
“... entered the bay. Admiral Jervis ordered that three frigates - ‘’Emerald’’, the 40-gun ‘’Minerve’’ and the 32-gun ‘’Niger’’ – begin a search for the disabled Spanish flagship ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ which had been towed away from the battle. They were to be accompanied by two smaller craft, the 20-gun corvette ‘’Bonne-Citoyenne’’ and the 14-gun sloop ‘’Raven’’.”
  • I appreciate this is an article on the ship and not the crew, but it may be worth noting historical conjecture that Berkley’s failure to bring ‘’Emerald’’ to engage the Spanish flagship was responsible for his subsequent resignation from command. It’s in both James (referenced in this paragraph) and the “History of the Royal Navy by Clowes (I can drum up the Clowes ref for you if you like).
    If that was the case then I think it's a good idea to include something but all I can find in James (vol ii) is, "Captain Berkeley was much censured for his apparent want of resolution". Unfortunately it doesn't say by whom so that will invite immediate tagging. And, unless I'm missing something, Clowes (vol iv) simply says the motives for his mysterious actions were never made public.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, not sure what I was reading, then. Give me a little while and will either come back with a different source or strike this. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Various newspapers from March-May 1797 indicate Berkeley was to be court-martialed on Jervis' orders for his failure to capture the Spanish ship, despite her having struck her colours on his approach (so the censure is both by the newspapers and by implication Jervis). However this slightly breathless account indicates the court martial was called off when the captain of Minerve offered a convincing explanation for Berkeley's conduct. So have stopped looking, as the reasons for Berkeley's resignation might reasonably be described as matters of historical dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If we wanted to include something about censuring, we could use the source you've found to say something like, "Berkeley's reluctance to attack infuriated some of his fellow officers who asked for a court-martial. Minerve's captain, George Cockburn however came down on Berkeley's side, opining to Jervis that, under a jury rig, Santassima Trinidad was still capable of making a defence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest using the full name (well, the Royal Order name) of Santisima Trinidad (Holy Trinity) on all occasions and not shortening it to Trinidad (Trinity) as occurs in one instance.
    Done
  • The last sentence relates to the subsequent section and should be included there instead of here.
    Done - I was trying to create a link to the next section but it didn't really work.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subheader "Mediterranean service" doesn't work here, as everything down to "Caribbean service" is also Mediterranean. A non-essential suggestion: consider removing the “Career” header entirely and making “Mediterranean service” “Caribbean service”, “Home waters” and “Later career” the new level twos.
    Would you mind taking another look at this? There is very little difference between the two so you probably haven't noticed that the headings between "Mediterranean service" and "Caribbean service" are level three headings. They are sub-headings of the Mediterranean section. I have used the {{TOC limit|3}} template to stop them showing in the contents box which I thought was a bit too large.--Ykraps (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to make it a bit clearer, I've removed the template so the contents box displays all.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hopelessly" seems like editorial, suggest removing this word.
    Done

Will have a few other comments in another day or so. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean service Uses Terpsichore twice in the last sentence – is it possible to remove or replace the second use of the word?

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 26 April

  • Not essential, but the section could probably do with a sentence or two to set the scene for what we are about to read – for example, why the British were blockading Cadiz, and how many ships were involved.
    There was an explanation further on in the article but I think it should have been given earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and second sentences – on a first read I was uncertain if the Spanish ships captured/destroyed in sentence one are the same ones as mentioned in sentence two. Is there a way to make these two sentences relate to each other a little more. As above, not essential.
    Does the addition of a simple "the" improve it any?--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section could do with a map, if one exists, as there are a lot of place names.
    I would've liked one showing the relative positions of Cadiz, Trafalgar and Conil bay but alas nothing seems to be available. I'll request one at the appropriate venue, if I can find where it is.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “which posed a threat to unwary seamen” seems a bit redundant?
    Okay, agreed. I wanted to convey that it was a hazard the Spanish weren't expecting their pursuers to have the skill or courage to negotiate but as we're not writing an adventure novel...--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Irresistible and Emerald had captured Ninfa and destroyed Santa Elena but ...” suggest removing these words as redundant. It is important to note the silver was delivered, but the rest simply restates what we read previously.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that the victory was a somewhat hollow one but I've reworded and I think I've managed to retain that feeling.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with previous section, the last sentence (“Later in 1797 ...”) doesn’t really work here and perhaps belongs in the section below.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a minor FAC transgression I've also made a mild copyedit to this section, directly to the article. Please feel free to revert if you prefer - it was just quicker to make these directly than to type them out here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, your edits look good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second bombardment of Cadiz

  • I like the introductory sentences here as they give necessary context. Am assuming Emerald missed the Battle of Cape Vincent – do we know why?
    Not missed as such; normally only 3rd rates and above fought in fleet actions so she was anchored in nearby Lagos Bay with the other smaller vessels. There is a small sentence saying as much in the previous section.--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here Jervis orders a blockade of Cadiz, but Emerald was already blockading Cadiz in the previous section. I think it was the same blockade?
    I think this has been sorted by moving the explanation further up the page.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which side owned the mortar boats that were captured?
    Done - Spanish.--Ykraps (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    have struck the above, but its not clear how a bombardment of the town leads to the capture of Spanish mortar boats, which were presumably docked (you cannot use mortar boats to defend against ships at sea).
  • Last sentence doesn’t entirely work and might be better located in the following section.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fewer suggestions for the following sections, I promise. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am happy to have a thorough review.--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria

  • Idle curiosity – are we still with Jervis at Lisbon? Also, I imagine there’s no answer to this but how did we end up with a temporary captain in Proby? Proby was only a Lieutenant at this time – seems a surprisingly large command for an 18-year old.
    Yes, still with Jervis. The ex-Mediterranean fleet was stationed in the Tagus, waiting for an opportunity to re-establish itself. I'll see what I can find out about Proby but I'm not very hopeful.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made it clear that Emerald is still in Jervis' fleet.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence could do with a copyedit – I know what you’re saying by listing Nelson’s ship next to his name, but breaking up the ship list and putting the destination in between, is a bit hard to follow.
    I've listed the ships together - see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence “became separated from the rest of the squadron” might read better – otherwise it is “Emerald”” herself that becomes separated. Also, “two weeks later” might read better than using a second date in the same sentence.
    As the battle happened over a couple of days, saying, 9 days later, or similar begs questions such as; did she miss just the start or the entire battle? I have kept the dates therefore but rewritten slightly. Again, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence on going to Alexandria, might be good to explain why. Also, needs the date of the Battle of the Nile as is not otherwise evident why being lost in a storm on 21 May means the battle is missed.
    Done - have added more detail and rewritten section.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Anemone captured off Alexandria where “Emerald” was stationed?
    Yes. After the Battle of the Nile, Emerald remained off Alexandria for the rest of the year (part of a squadron under Samuel Hood, I believe). Winfield only says where not who with or what she was doing but I remember reading somewhere that she was assisting with the evacuation of French troops. There is a sentence at the end of the previous paragraph which might be better placed at the beginning of this one?--Ykraps (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    James says that Nelson, "...sailed for Naples ; leaving Captain Hood with the Zealous, Goliath, Swiftsure, Seahorse (who had joined on the 17th), Emerald, Alcmène, and Bonne-Citoyenne, to cruise off the port of Alexandria". I vaguely remember reading that she was left to blockade the port, possibly in Clowes but I can't find it at the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added this information using Clowes.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Wooden casks” seems odd here – did they build a raft?
    No, as being able to swim was unusual at the time, swimmers among the British crew swam in with empty casks for the French seamen to use as buoyancy aids. Various sources say the casks were small so I am assuming they were empty rum containers as the water would've been kept in large barrels, and various sources (including James) attribute it to a single lieutenant (my mistake, Middy), Francis Fane (Royal Navy officer). I cannot find the original source I used for this section and I am having difficulty opening the Gazette citations to see what they say. I will try to open them from a computer at work tomorrow and have another look.--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gazette says "our people" but particularly mentions a midshipman from Emerald. I have added some more detail and added James as a source.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 1799

  • Only one here - "advance Mediterranean fleet" - in advance of what?
    The source only refers to it as such. At the time, the Royal Navy had withdrawn from the Med and had no permanent presence there. Following the Battle of the Nile, with French force weakened, the British started looking for a permanent base, which they found after the capture of Minorca. I am assuming that Emerald was part of a small fleet sent in advance of the main Mediterranean fleet stationed at Lisbon.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    James also makes reference to Emerald as being part of an "..advanced division under Lord Keith", but is not altogether clear as to its purpose. I have therefore removed the phrase, until a satisfactory answer is found.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean service

  • Not essential - Did the invasion force also include troopships, or was it solely the listed RN vessels?
    None of the sources list troopships so I assume the troops were carried aboard the vessels listed.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck this, but I doubt the troops were carried aboard the RN ships. Will have a look at the wording, but this shouldn't hold up the review.
    Actually, having double checked, James says, "On the 21st of June, at 11 a.m., Commodore Samuel Hood, with the 74-gun ships Centaur and Courageux, Captains Bendall Robert Littlehales and Benjamin Hallowell, and some smaller vessels, having on board a detachment of the British army under Lieutenant-general Grinfeld, anchored in Choc-bay, Saint Lucie for the purpose of reducing the island..."--Ykraps (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also not essential, but it would be better not to have a one-sentence paragraph here – is it possible to put this sentence on the end of the preceding paragraph instead?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Diamond

  • Suggest putting the reason for the use of the boats ahead of the first sentence, which explains the effect of using them. Would also be useful to add “Captain” before O’Bryen in this instance – we met him in the preceding section but as this is only the second mention it helps make clearer who he is.

Apropus

  • Minor grammar issue – the schooner and batteries didn’t “see” Emerald – it was their crews/gunners.

Back in Basque Roads

  • Possibly making too much of this section – Is it correct that “Emerald”’s only role here was to stay behind while other vessels engaged? If so this may not need its own section; if not then I’ve misunderstood and perhaps this could be made slightly clearer in the text.
  • Yes, Emerald was left to shadow the French fleet. An important role which I think needs mentioning but I take your point and have shortened the description of the engagement as that is not so relevant.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph typo: calls Stopford Stoppard

Chase of “Niemen”

  • First sentence is a bit long – can this be broken in two? Again I slightly wonder about the need for the section - "Emerald" spotted "Niemen" but then lost her - really this section is about the two captures mentioned in the first sentence.
  • I have shortened this section and added it to the previous section. I agree Emerald didn't play much of a part in those actions but thought they were worth mentioning in order to lessen the gaps in her history and to show where Emerald was an what she was doing at the time (if that makes sense).--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further question

  • Apologies for coming back with a final query, but the lead lists this as a 36-gun vessel but the infobox details 44-guns. Am travelling so don't have Winfield ref with me - if you've got it handy this should be pretty easy to resolve either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    She was a 36-gun vessel; carronades are not counted as guns (if that is what you are doing). This is consistent with all similar articles. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The things you learn, though I note this is inconsistently applied across some similar articles. Still, thanks for the speedy response. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

  • Well done for amassing his much detail on a frigate, which by definition is usually in a supporting role or in minor engagements that barely make the histories. It is certainly detailed enough for an FA; if I had any regrets it would be a) that we have a good history of the ship’s battles but not much on the ship itself; b) that the battles sometimes read like a list, and c) there's occasionally too much detail without context on its relevance. But these are the realities of the kind of coverage these vessels get, and you’ve made the most of what exists. Most of this last set of comments are suggestions only, once you correct the typo etc, support. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I have corrected all the typos I have found, though probably have introduced others. I have also worked on style, converting the passive voice into the active wherever doing so made sense. Lastly, I have added-in all the material that I could find to flesh out what Emerald did outside of the battles. Net-net, I support making a featured article of this article.Acad Ronin (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Reference and source checking by Cas Liber

edit
  • Any reason why Troude (1867), Vol. 4, pp.74-7 is not "74-77" as other page ranges are not abbreviated?
    Done - I am afraid that ref was added very recently and so wasn't checked when I prepped the article.--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also is it Seaforth or Seaforth Publishing?
    Done - Good question. I have more than a dozen books by that publisher; they all say simply, Seaforth on the spine but inside they all say, Seaforth Publishing. I have changed all to the latter for consistency.--Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "Winfield, Rif & Stephen S Roberts (2015) French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786–1861: Design Construction, Careers and Fates. (Seaforth Publishing). ISBN 978-1-84832-204-2" has publisher in parentheses for some reason...
    Done - Again, ref added after article was nominated.--Ykraps (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs otherwise consistently formatted.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool all clear.

I will do more later. After 1am here and I need to sleep. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: To FAC coordinators, see User_talk:Alansplodge#Featured_article_source_review for source review material. I can go review something else now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) My bad, was test only. Will continue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using this version for ref numbers:

  • FN 9 - used twice, article material faithful to source.
  • FN 54 - used once, article material faithful to source.
  • FN 79 - used once, article material faithful to source.

Most sources offline. Am happy with what I have found so far. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

Oppose: I appreciate that this is quite late in the review, but I don't think we're quite there on prose yet. A quick look revealed several little issues that I wouldn't expect to see at this stage. Overall, I think we're fine, but I think a last polish is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples only from various places in the article:

  • A lot of sentences in the lead begin with either "In" or "She" which makes for repetitive reading
    I have rewritten six of the fifteen sentences I found beginning with "in", and seven of the ten beginning "she". Is that enough do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Emerald was first commissioned in August 1795, under Velters Cornwall Berkeley": Under who? Especially as this is a red-link, it would be nice to know who he was
    Berkley (Wikinotable in that he is mentioned in multiple reliable sources) is most famous for his inaction after discovering Santissima Trinidad. Something he was censured for and very nearly court-martialled. Minerve's captain, George Cockburn came to his defence, however. I don't think he ever rose above the rank of captain and I assume that is because he died prematurely. It is red-linked in other articles and is on my hit-list although I'm not sure I'll have enough for more than a stub. If it's a deal breaker, I can remove it until such an article is written.--Ykraps (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1797, she sailed to join Admiral John Jervis' fleet in the Mediterranean.[1] Although attached to Jervis' fleet at the time...": Close repetition of "Jervis' fleet"
    Fixed--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 16 February, the victorious British fleet and its prize ships entered the bay. Jervis ordered the three frigates, Emerald, Minerve, and Niger, of 40 and 32 guns respectively, to search for the disabled flagship, Santisima Trinidad which had been seen being towed away from the battle.": This is a very long sentence which could be split; also, "which had been seen being towed away from the battle" reads clumsily
    Done - Not split but rewritten and shortened. Clumsy phrasing removed. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but I think the sentence works just as well without "previously".
    Done - Okay, as it's clear that the battle occurred two days earlier, I suppose the word's redundant.--Ykraps (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the MoS suggests times are in the format 16:00 rather than 16.00
    Done - two instances found.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice from a quick scan that a lot of consecutive sentences begin with the same words throughout the article
    In addition to the sentences starting "in" and "she", I have changed seven from twelve sentences beginning "on". Anything else?--Ykraps (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nelson is not linked on his first mention in the main body
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout, we seem to be a bit wordy and could stand to tighten up the prose quite a bit. For example, we have "Later, in July 1797, Emerald took part in the unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz.[1] Admiral Nelson had proposed an attack on the port in April, which had been aborted when the 3,500 troops he had hoped to use were redeployed. Jervis had since been advised that the Spanish treasure fleet was anchored there, and revived Nelson's plan." This could be cut back to "In July 1797, Emerald took part in an unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz.[1] A planned attack in April, proposed by Admiral Horatio Nelson, had been aborted owing to the unavailability of the troops required to execute it. When Jervis was subsequently advised that the Spanish treasure fleet was anchored there, he revived Nelson's plan."
    Done (sort of) - I didn't like the "...had been aborted owing to the unavailability of the troops required to execute it" as that made it sound like the unavailability was a requirement, so I've flipped that part of the sentence. I've also changed "plan" for "idea" as the word plan crops up in the very next sentence. Again, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example of wordiness: "Then in May 1798, on hearing of a large invasion fleet leaving Toulon, Jervis dispatched Emerald, Terpsichore, Bonne-Citoyenne, and the 74-gun Orion to look for the fleet. The squadron, commanded by Nelson in the 74-gun Vanguard, left Gibraltar on 9 May". Why not "In May 1798, Jervis dispatched a squadron of five ships, including Emerald and commanded by Nelson in the 74-gun Vanguard, to locate a large invasion fleet that had left Toulon." I'm not sure we need the names of the other ships, but perhaps they could be added as a note?
    Done - I guess part of the reason for listing the other ships is to provide links to their respective articles, but I've added as a footnote as per your suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found these from looking randomly through the article, and I suspect there are many others like this. I suggest another look through the tighten up the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, are you intending to return to this?--Ykraps (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I'm still seeing little problems. Normally I'd copy-edit directly, but I'm a little reluctant here for fear of inadvertently changing the meaning. See what you think of these suggestions, and if I'm not too far off base, I could give this a quick copy-edit myself. It's really not far off, I don't think. However, I found these from randomly reading back and forth across the article, without reading too closely. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The sloop Hippomenes, a transport and a further three armed vessels; landed Brigadier-General Frederick Maitland and 700 troops at Warapee Creek on the night of 30 April.": Not too sure why there is a semi-colon here, unless I'm missing something.
    Removed--Ykraps (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While in the Basque Roads in April 1807, Emerald captured the 14-gun privateer Austerlitz. Austerlitz was a brig from Nantes under the command of Captain Gatien Lafont, with a crew of 96 men.": It's better not to end a sentence and begin the next with the same word. It may be better to combine them: "While in the Basque Roads in April 1807, Emerald captured the 14-gun privateer Austerlitz, a brig from Nantes under the command of Captain Gatien Lafont." I'd prefer "a 96-man brig" but I don't know if that would be acceptable; I think giving the number of guns is enough to establish its size, but I've no idea if it is an unusual number of men so perhaps we need to know how many were on board.
    Done - I would expect a 14-gun brig to have a crew of around seventy, a 16-gun to have a crew of eighty and an 18-gun to have a crew in excess of a hundred but crew and gun numbers were subject to change, particularly if the cruise was a long one. I suppose this level of detail is only of interest to the most ardent fan.--Ykraps (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two French sloops; Deux Freres and Balance were taken by Emerald in July 1809. Deux Freres arrived at Plymouth on 26 July. She had had left Rochelle for Guadeloupe when Emerald captured her.": I'm pretty sure "had had" is a typo here, but the order seems wrong (and I'm not sure we need the date of the arrival in Plymouth when we've already said it was in July). Why not "Deux Freres, en route for Guadeloupe from Rochelle when captured, arrived in Plymouth on 26 July."
    Done - Some of this stuff was added after nominating and I'm afraid I haven't proof read it since.--Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two days later Emerald captured a second letter of marque": As the first letter of marque is mentioned in a note, this is a little jarring. My preference is to briefly explain what a link will show to save the reader a click, so I would prefer a brief explanation of a letter of marque in the text, but not a huge deal if you'd rather not.
    Done, I think - linked with short explanation and also de-worded a bit but wasn't sure if we were talking about the same paragraph. Take a look and see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later career": Is "career" the best word to describe a ship? Sounds wrong, but is it the convention?
    I thought that was the style but I'm having trouble finding examples. I much prefer the term service, so I've changed to that.--Ykraps (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between February and June 1806, Emerald underwent repairs at Deptford dockyard before being recommissioned under Captain John Larmour. The appointment was however short-lived as Captain Frederick Lewis Maitland assumed command in the first quarter of 1807." Another example of wordiness? What about "Between February and June 1806, Emerald underwent repairs at Deptford dockyard and was recommissioned under Captain John Armour; Frederick Lewis Maitland assumed command in the first quarter of 1807." I think the rest is implied without needing to be stated.
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time the fireships were ready in the early hours on the 13th, contrary winds prevented their deployment. The British therefore contented themselves with setting Varsovie and Aquilon alight just after 03:00, on the orders of Captain John Bligh, after having removed their crews in boats." Again, I think this could be tighter. What about "Although the fireships were ready in the early hours on the 13th, contrary winds prevented their deployment. The British instead set Varsovie and Aquilon alight just after 03:00, on the orders of Captain John Bligh, after removed their crews." Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - I seem to remember reading that there was an opportunity to deploy them earlier but because the British had faffed about, by the time they were, the opportunity was lost, and it was that I was trying to convey. However, on reading the source, James merely says, "It was very near midnight before the three fire-ships were ready to proceed. The wind then became baffling; and, at 2 a.m. on the 13th began to blow from the south-west, or directly out of the passage to Aix road......as the fire-ships, which had been committed by the rear-admiral on his departure to the charge of Captain Bligh, could not for the present be put in operation, nothing further was done beyond setting fire to the Aquilon and Varsovie" so I guess what you're suggesting fits okay.--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, Any more?--Ykraps (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: I've copy-edited a bit down to "Attack on Santa Cruz", but just a few queries. Please feel free to revert any edits I make if they mess anything up. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted just one. Tons (BM) is a measurement of volume not weight. There was a link, which I've now re-instated, that appears to have been removed during another copy edit. Your other edits look fine.--Ykraps (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of four Amazon-class frigates": I think we need to say what an Amazon-class frigate was
    The original Amazon-class (for there were several) were four frigates designed by William Rule to the particular dimensions and carrying the armament stated in the article so I think all that can be said about it has been. An expanded version (Naiad design) came out in August 1795, of 18 frigates that were (my mistake, just the one) larger at 1,013 tons {BM), had 38 guns and a complement of 284 men. Then a larger Amazon-class came out in 1796, 1,038 tons (BM), 300 men. So there will be enough for a small article at some point. If you want, we could add something as a footnote in the interim.--Ykraps (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a footnote but it's easily removed if you don't think it's an improvement.--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although attached to Admiral John Jervis' fleet at the time, Emerald did not take part in the Battle of Cape St Vincent on 14 February, but was instead anchored in nearby Lagos Bay with other vessels": Presumably Jervis' fleet was taking part in this battle at the time? Why did Emerald not take part, and why was she anchored there instead? I think a sentence or two background on the battle would be appropriate here as well.
    Frigates never took part in fleet actions as they weren't designed for that purpose. Sources don't say why the smaller ships were at Lagos Bay, presumably it was a convenient sheltered location. I have added a few words to say Emerald wasn't powerful enough to join in, and I've added a bit of background. The whole story is a complex business but as the battle is linked in the article, I don't think it needs more. By all means though, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Berkley in command of the squadron? Otherwise, how could he make the decision not to engage? And was there any come-back on this?
    Yes, hence "his squadron" but if you think it needs better clarification, we could say, "Berkeley, considering the small squadron under his command insufficient, declined to engage and eventually the Spanish ships sailed from sight". He was apparently censured for his lack of action, yes. See your second question about Berkeley and Euryalus' comments, Mediterranean service section, 4th question, for a few more details.--Ykraps (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a footnote here too but again, easy to remove if you don't like.--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a link for marines?
    Yep, done.--Ykraps (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Alexandria section looks to have some short paragraphs (I havent read it properly yet); could any of them be combined? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go, see if you think it's an improvement.--Ykraps (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarastro1 I've also had a look at the rest for short sentences and wordiness but have a look and see if there's anything else.--Ykraps (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm hoping to have another look later today. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, did you manage to take another look?--Ykraps (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: Nearly at the end now. I did more copy-editing and have a few more queries, but we're nearly there. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we know what happened to Waller between December 1797 and April 1798?
    No. He may have been on leave but I'm just guessing.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a little more background on the Battle of the Nile would help in the Alexandria section. Otherwise, Nelson's actions and what happened to the Emerald all seem a little disjointed. Again, just a sentence or two would suffice.
    I've added a sentence to say what occurred.--Ykraps (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to Anėmone? Was it rescued, or just left?
    As it was impossible to land, I think it's safe to assume it was left but there doesn't appear to be a record of this.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too keen on "Faced with the might of two seventy-fours" or "attack it piecemeal"; both seem slightly un-encyclopaedic but I can't think of a way to rephrase and keep the same meaning. "Overwhelming odds" instead of "might"?
    I've changed "might" to "overwhelming odds" as per your suggestion. I'm not sure about "piecemeal", "bit by bit" seems even less encyclopaedic.--Ykraps (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about, "...a section at a time"?--Ykraps (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to overhaul and cross the bow of a 10-gun merchantman": Why would this force their surrender?
    Because the merchantman was hopelessly out-gunned, its only option was to run. Once it had been overhauled, the game was up.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We link prizes earlier, but I wonder if a note would help a bit. I only know what they are from reading Hornblower! Not a big deal either way.
    Do you mean as a footnote or in the main text? If you mean the latter, one thought is to change the text to "captured ships" and link to "prize".--Ykraps (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any suggestion why Emerald went from the blockade of Cadiz to the Leeward Islands? Quite a change to pass without comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably, following the Treaty of Amiens, a blockade wasn't required. The West Indies were of huge importance; 20% of all British and 50% of French trade was generated there, so the loss of these islands would’ve led to serious financial problems for both countries (wars are expensive). When hostilities resumed in 1803, forces were sent there not only to protect British interests but to attack French possessions thus disrupting the trade and consequently the flow of money. It was a tactic that had worked well during the last war.--Ykraps (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) I've added that there was a peace between these two events. Unless you meant something else?--Ykraps (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to mention this in a note without engaging in OR? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think mentioning the Peace of Amiens is original research, if that is all that is required. I've not said she was sent there because of resumed hostilities, I've merely said she went there after.--Ykraps (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometimes in less water than the frigates drew": The meaning escapes me a bit here.
    Meaning that in some parts of the river, the depth of water was less than the required depth to float the ship properly.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to finish this one tomorrow or the day after. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In two replies above, you have explained to me what terms mean. The general reader won't have the luxury of asking you, and I doubt the vast majority of general readers will be naval specialists. I think we need to explain these points in the text. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure what to suggest here as I don't see draw/drew as technical jargon. I suppose we could add a footnote giving its dictionary definition of, "Requiring a depth of water for floating" citing The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) or "Requiring a certain depth on which to float" citing Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) but I've never seen anything like that in any other article. Or if you don't like that idea, we could link to the Wikipedia article, Draft (hull)?--Ykraps (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the merchantman, I've added that she had nowhere to go.--Ykraps (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My preference on the "drew" would be to reword it in everyday language; "sometimes in less water than the frigates required to float properly", per your definition. Otherwise (and I appreciate that probably sounds wrong to you!) maybe just link it. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I suppose that's acceptable. Incidentally, in places the water was 3' too shallow. Makes you wonder how much power is required to plough a three foot deep trench in a river bed, even if it was only silt. But then I don't suppose you find that sort of thing as exciting as I do.--Ykraps (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, just checking you haven't forgotten this review; you were hoping to finish it by the 4th.--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Something came up in real life, I haven't forgotten but I might need a few more days. If I haven't got back to this by the end of the week, consider my oppose struck. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments: I've struck my oppose. Just a few last queries. I'll have one last look when these are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We use battery a couple of times in the article. Is there a decent link for it?
    Yep - linked to Gun battery--Ykraps (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British ships anchored, with springs": Can we clarify for the general reader?
    There doesn't appear to be an article that covers this so I've added a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While off the coast of Ireland, on 8 October Emerald rescued a British brig consequent on capturing Incomparable, an 8-gun French privateer": Not entirely sure what this means.
    It simply means that as a consequence of Emerald capturing the privateer, the brig was rescued. I've now just put "by".--Ykraps (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deschateurs had no option but to strike. The subsequent court-martial absolved Deschateurs of any liability for the loss of his vessel and commended him for his conduct.": This is a little confusing. Was he captured? And presumably this was a French court martial?
    Yes - I've rewritten this slightly to clarify.--Ykraps (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thirteen days later Emerald was in company with 13 outward bound East Indiamen and all were reported well at 3°2′N 24°0′W, in the middle of the South Atlantic.": This is a rather odd way to say this. Do we need to know their position so exactly, and why use the phrasing "reported well"? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the reason for giving the exact position is purely because this level of detail is available. She was "reported" because the information came from a secondary source; the transport ship Fanny. I've rewritten this, combining it with the previous sentence and putting the detail in a footnote. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, thanks for striking your opposition. I have made some changes based on your comments above. Have a look and see if you like or not. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last checks:

Support with copy-editing disclaimer: I've now edited this quite a lot, which might affect the weight of my support. Even so, I think we're just about there. There are still a few places where the prose could stand a little more smoothing, and I might keep picking away for a day or two. Also, the punctuation is a bit inconsistent, and there might be one or two more bits that need tweaking. However, I think we're close enough now (although another pair of eyes might be invaluable) and the nominator deserves praise for their patience as I've hacked away at this article very slowly, and for an impressive piece of research. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2016 (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_Emerald_(1795)/archive1&oldid=791874426"