Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS President (1800)/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 SandyGeorgia 13:16, 30 April 2010 [1].

USS President (1800)

edit

USS President (1800) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Article passed A-Class last October. Since then I've been able to expand it and overhaul the references too. Those who have mentioned in the past about explaining the controversy over the building of these frigates can now go to the main article which I've substantially expanded to cover the controversy. Brad (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I broke the sentence up. Looks better now. --Brad (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Prose. Some suggestions/comments...do with them what you wish:
  • "She was named by George Washington to reflect a principal of the United States Constitution." A "principal" doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps "named in honor of the executive office of the United States" or simply, "named by George Washington."
  • "Forman Cheeseman built her…" I understand your meaning, but it sounds a bit as though he did it single-handedly. Perhaps "supervised her construction" or something similar.
  • "The incident increased tensions between the two countries, tensions that led up to the War of 1812…" Repetition is a bit awkward. I suggest "The incident increased tensions between the two countries leading up to the War of 1812."
  • "President launched on 10 April 1800—the last of the original six frigates to do so—and after her fitting out, and with Captain Thomas Truxtun in command, she departed for Guadalupe on 5 August." This is awkward. Can it be broken up into multiple, shorter sentences?
  • "During the United States' preoccupation with the Quasi-War, the United States paid tribute…" I suggest: "During the Quasi-War, the United States paid tribute..."
  • "U.S. Congress did not ratify…" I think "United States" should be used here rather than the abbreviation.
  • "President changed course and attempting to outrun them discovered the damage she suffered the night before significantly reduced her speed. In an attempt to gain speed…" The word "attempt" is used three times in this paragraph. I would re-word slightly.
As to the above, I've corrected the prose as you suggested. A "copyeditor" recently reworked it which is one of the frustrating parts of wikipedia. An "improvement" is often not. The changes you suggested are pretty much the way the article was previously. --Brad (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification needed:
  • "…revealed that the impact had twisted off a short section of her keel." Is there information of when/where she was repaired? The transition here is a bit abrupt.
She went to Toulon afterward but my sources aren't specific as to what repairs were made. Obviously repairs were made to the keel but nothing I have can directly cite that. I didn't think the geographical location was all that important. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April President Jefferson decided …" I'd suggest you add a year here.
Done --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Congress began authorizing naval appropriations and President recommissioned in 1809..." Can you add a sentence or two on her whereabouts between 1805 and 1809? Was she de-commissioned?
I've been faced with this before. Sources do not say what the ship was doing in that period. It's very likely she was decommissioned and placed in ordinary, which was common procedure, but I cannot cite that fact. I can cite that she recommissioned in 1809. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decatur and his crew were briefly held as prisoners there." Where? I believe you mean Bermuda, but it should probably be spelled out.
Done --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: I think the article would benefit from an image or two of the commanding officers...especially Rodgers.
Added Rogers but I'm trying to avoid a photo gallery article. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Jackyd101 brings up an important point below. Once that's dealt with, I'd be happy to support. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my comments above have been addressed and photo issue below is resolved. Nice work. Historical Perspective (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching of google images this goes a lot further. I cannot find any source that the photo may have originated from so that we could determine it to be PD. There are several other sites with the photo on it but they appear to be wikipedia rips. However, I did find this photo which if I'm not mistaken could be used here under the license of "two dimensional reproductions of an out of copyright work" since the credits state it was created in 1904. Comments welcome. --Brad (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me, however I am far from an expert in such matters. It might be a good idea to seek an opinion from the folks in the licensing department at Wikimedia Commons. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a suitably licensed photo for the article and have changed the lead photo in this article. The license was changed on the one you brought into question but seeing as it's a guessing game I'm not going to use it. Commons conversation over this issue is here. --Brad (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on that, the new image is certainly acceptable. Just to add in case it helps, I recognised this image as being in copyright because it is stylistically rooted in later 20th century maritime painting, which is usually a giveaway. When I looked the name up, I found things like this from World War I and this from World War II. Although I don't know for sure whether he is still alive or not, it seems that he definately died within the proscribed 70 years.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Review by Charles Edward

  • In the lead - "The Admiralty had her broken up in 1818, although she had served only a few years." - Perhaps say "British" or "Royal" Admiralty for clarity.
  • "Joshua Humphreys' design was unusual for the time..." This is a bit jarring change. His design was unusual, but why did that matter? I suggest adding a sentence before this one explaining that he was given the task of designing the ships.
  • Query: "President's nominal "rating" was that of a 44-gun ship" - why is "rating" in quotes?
  • Link Guadalupe
  • Link Gibraltar
  • "..but they were actually two French frigates..", maybe say "...but they were actually two friendly French frigates..." Maybe "neutral", if not "friendly". Either way, the French were at war with Britain too, but at peace with the US.
    • That passage has annoyed me for sometime now. Roosevelt was the only source to mention the encounter and describes it thus:
      • "On the 25th, in lat. 19° N. and long. 35° W., the President, during the night, fell in with two frigates, and came so close that the head-most fired at her, when she made off. These were thought to be British, but were in reality the two French 40-gun frigates Nymphe and Meduse, one month out of Brest."
    • Otherwise Roosevelt offers no consequence of the encounter or any further analysis as to why President was fired upon. Perhaps the French ships mistook President for a British ship but saying that would be nothing but speculation. I may just remove the whole mention of the encounter for simplicity sake. --Brad (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link gale
  • Reference #17 is not following a punctuation point
  • References are good
  • Only MOS issues are listed
  • Images check out
  • Prose is good

Support Just a few nitpicks here, none enough to oppose over. Overall this article looks great to me. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues have been addressed and I'm sure that Steve's most excellent copy editing has removed all of them. The Roosevelt problem is still a problem, however. Not exactly sure what to do about that presently. --Brad (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments, leaning support. Edited by Steve T • C at 21:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I was going to lodge a relatively weak oppose, based on finding too many prose niggles. I started on a list, but realised it would be quicker to just do them. I hope you don't mind (see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each); I wouldn't have bothered if I didn't feel the article was close to FA. Everything else seems to check out fine (sources, images, etc.). The only thing I can't speak to is comprehensiveness, because of my lack of experience with the topic. A few things I couldn't resolve during copyediting:[reply]

  • "The squadron arrived at Gibraltar on 1 July; President and Enterprise quickly continued to Algiers. Their presence convinced the regent to withdraw the threats he had made against American merchant ships."—whose presence, where (the squadron or the two ships, Algiers or Tripoli)?
    • The squadron was sent to deal with Tripoli but by the time they arrived at Gibraltar Algiers had made some threats against the US. In response to those threats, President and Enterprise went to Algiers. The ships presence off Algiers was enough for the regent of Algiers to withdraw his threats. A show of force. --Brad (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That clears things up in my mind, thanks. I think the ambiguity needed resolving in the article; as it stood, it wasn't clear, as "the threats he had made" makes it sound like something the article has already introduced—the only threat/demand so far is from Karamanli of Tripoli. I took a swing at it. Steve T • C
  • "by mid-1804 they had successfully fought the Battle of Tripoli Harbor."—successfully fighting a battle doesn't necessarily mean winning it. It's unclear because the linked article implies that Preble wasn't particularly effective, even if the US ultimately won. I'm also not sure what the line is doing here, as the subsequent section jumps back a couple of months.
    • First a note: Sailors serve in a ship instead of on a ship. This is a picky military point but important nonetheless. I removed "successfully"; I'm not really sure why that was there. The date of the battle more specifically took place in July. There is a time overlap here attempting to explain what happened in the Med before President got there. When Jefferson heard about the capture of Philadelphia he sent reinforcements for Preble. However, Preble's men successfully burned Philadelphia to the waterline before President's arrival. --Brad (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. (Sorry about the on/in thing too). Steve T • C
  • "Rodgers ordered his gun crews to fire at will and several accurate broadsides did much damage in return."—it's unclear whether President's broadsides caused "much damage", or ones from Little Belt in answer to Rodgers'. It's the "in return" that does it.
  • On that, the investigations result in no clear assignment of blame for the first shots, as the US and British don't agree. Fine, but in our account prior, we say—unequivocally—that Little Belt was the first to fire. Is the source taking Rodgers' word for it? Does the source have access to information that the US and British investigations didn't?
    • It breaks down like this: Beach and Toll pull a neutral attitude simply saying a gun was fired without knowing the origin. Maclay and Cooper say it was Little Belt that fired first. So we have a draw here. I'm not opposed to pulling the neutral for this article but it is an article about the US Navy ship that Rodgers commanded during this incident. My thinking was to use Rodgers' version of events. --Brad (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck, per below. Steve T • C
  • Some of the images are a little small; fancy bumping them up a bit?

Otherwise, nice work. Steve T • C 13:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I most appreciate your copy editing. It's very difficult to find such a person. You were good enough that your changes did not even rub against what the references back up which is another difficulty. I will address the rest of your issues later today. --Brad (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done; looking good to go, so I switched my vote above. Best, Steve T • C 21:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support provided that the following issue is cleared up. As Steve mentions, the article currently presents the US perspective on the Little Belt incident. I think this would be more NPOV to use the neutral, or, at the very least, to make it clear in the beginning of that paragraph that there is disagreement as to which ship fired first (perhaps, "according to Rodgers..."). Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've changed the wording to reflect. --Brad (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. OK, I'm going to have a swing at this. Steve T • C Five images, all claimed free:
    • File:Usspresidentatanchor.jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation; source country public domain status claimed because the Canadian author, Edward John Russell (1832–1906) died more than fifty years ago. Both claims check out OK, and the image page is appropriately tagged.
    • File:Little Belt, Sloop of War.jpg— United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation; source country public domain status claimed because the British author, William Elmes (1797-1815), died prior to 1 January 1940. Both claims check out OK, and the image page is appropriately tagged.
    • File:Presidentgunexplosion.jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation. The author is unknown, but it was first published in The Naval History of the United States (1896). Tagged appropriately.
    • File:John Rodgers (naval officer, War of 1812).jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation. First published in The Polyanthos (1813). Tagged appropriately.
    • File:President and endymion.jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation. It was first published in The Naval History of the United States (1896). Tagged appropriately.
  • All the best, Steve T • C 08:07, 30 April 2010 (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/USS_President_(1800)/archive1&oldid=1078808820"