Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Roebuck (1774)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Roebuck (1774)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk)

HMS Roebuck (1774) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... The article achieved GA in April and I am hoping it will eventually make FA. A peer review was requested last month where, among other things, it was suggested I nominate for ACR.

Roebuck was a two-deck fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy, built specifically to operate in the shallow waters around America, where the British ships-of-the-line couldn't go. She served throughout the American Revolutionary War and took part in notable operations against Philadelphia and Charleston. Presumably because she was old and her type wasn't required during the French wars, she was after converted for use as a hospital and troop ship, taking part in the captures of Martinique and St Lucia in 1794. When war broke out with the Batavian Republic, Roebuck was part of the fleet sent to capture the Dutch Navy in the Vlieter roadstead. She served as guardship towards the end of her career and was eventually broken up in 1811.

Any and all feedback is welcome but I am usually lambasted for my prose so that could be a good starting point. Thanks Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great to see this here. I reviewed at GAN, and it is in good shape, but I have some comments:

Lead
Body

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the thorough review. I've made most of the changes you've suggested but haven't been able to address your points about why the attacks in Narragansett Bay ended in April 1779, and how to differentiate between the Batavian Republic and Batavia in the Dutch East Indies. Do you have suggestions as to how I can better comply? Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good. Supporting. Well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:USS_Confederacy.jpg: why is this believed to be in the public domain?
    I'm assuming because it is a reproduction of the painting taken with a Nikon D90 by Kenneth G. Takada for the USN and they appear to have released it into the public domain. It is free to download here [[10]].--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that file, the current tagging reflects the photograph - what is the copyright status of the original painting? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that Freedom of panorama in US copyright law doesn't extend to works of art as it does in the UK but the painting (and therefore presumably, the copyright) is owned by USN and if they choose to put a faithful reproduction of it into the public domain, how is that not acceptable? Just asking out of interest, I don't have an overwhelming desire to use it. As regards the date, it was published in this book [[11]] in 1974.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, this article looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • Well yes indeed Ykraps, this is a British related article so we need to add pounds here too (as primary units). Cheers.
  • 18-pounder refers to 18 pounds. The 18-pound gun fired an 18-pound roundshot. Pounder is a fairly common noun used for something with a specified value in pounds.[[13]] If someone had a six-pound baby or caught a six-pound fish for example, one could refer to both as a six-pounder. Hope that clears things up.--Ykraps (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for your review. Can you take a look and make sure you're happy with the changes? I'm going away in a couple of days and would like to come to some agreement before then, if possible.--Ykraps (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of interest, I'm going to Belgium. :)--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh intresting, where in Belgium? In the Flemish, Waloon or Brussels region? This is also the first time I see someone on Wikipedia going to my home country. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will go to the Ardennes in a couple of days for two weeks. I hope you will have great time Bruges. Also be awere those West-Flemish are do have a weird and almost a vague dialect. As an Antwerpian I have a hard time to understand them, I could understand some of them but most of them I couldn't. But is it for work or for holiday? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the advice. I went camping in the Ardennes as a teenager. It is very beautiful as I remember. This isn't really appropriate use of this page but I am very happy to continue this conversation on a user talk page. Are we in accord with the pounds issue now?--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & suppot by Pendright

edit
  • HMS Roebuck was a 44-gun, fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy which served in the American and French Revolutionary Wars.
  • By description, HMS Roebuck (1774) was a fifth-rate class warship; "a 44 gun" is a detail that seems unnecessary in the lede summary.
Done. Roebuck was a powerful fifth rate, right at the top end of her rating, so I thought it was worth adding. However, it is mentioned in the next section so I don't feel strongly about keeping it in the lede.--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper name of the ship is HMS Roebuck (1774) - add (1774).
I don't think 1774 is part of the name. There was never more than one Roebuck in service at any one time so there was no requirement to differentiate it from other Roebucks, and 1774 would not have adorned her like identification numbers are painted on modern ships. The launch date (or capture date) is just used to disambiguate her on Wikipedia and in books where multiple Roebucks are discussed. Nor does it appear to be the style.[[15]][[16]][[17]]--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unaddressed! Pendright (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so! But for the purposes of this article, 1774 (whatever called) is what distinguishes it from the other 13 ships (Google) of the Royal Navy that were named Roebuck. If you are still uncomfortable with the idea, the call is yours to make. Pendright (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I wasn't responding in any particular order and was still pondering these two points. I have now replied above.--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have rushed you. Pendright (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Designed in 1769 by Sir Thomas Slade to operate in the shallower waters of North America, she joined Lord Howe's squadron towards the end of 1775 and took part in operations against New York the following year, engaging the American gun batteries at Red Hook during the Battle of Long Island in August 1776, and forcing a passage up the Hudson River in October.
This sentence is about 64 words in length. Most style guides, including British, would likly see this as two sentences. Consider breaking it up.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the American Revolutionary War ended, in October 1783, Roebuck underwent repairs at Sheerness and was refitted as hospital ship.
  • Consdider removing the comma after ended; by doing so will complete the introductory phrase.
Done. That was one of a pair of parenthetical commas but the sentence makes sense as you've constructed it.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the indefinite article "a" before hospital ship.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was therefore at the front of the attack; leading the British squadron across the bar to engage Fort Moultrie and the American ships beyond.
Therefore is really unnecessary because it is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. If kept, it should be set-off by commas.
Comma added. She was at the front because she was the flagship and hence the therefore.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One comma won't do it! Enclose therefore with commas, or use none at all. You decide!
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... to which the Dutch surrendered in the Vlieter Incident, on 30 August.
Becaue the Vlieter Incident link indicates the date, it is probably not needed here.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the War of the Third Coalition broke out in May 1803, she was brought back into service as a guardship at Leith, flying the flags of Vice-Admiral Richard Rodney Bligh then Rear-Admiral James Vashon under whom she later transferred to Great Yarmouth.
Consider the word "and" between Bligh and then.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March 1806, she became a receiving ship, and from some point in 1810, the flagship of Lord Gardner.
Three commas interrupts the flow of this sentence, when one would due. Consider this: In March 1806, she became a receiving ship and in 1810 the flagship of Lord Gardner.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Construction:

  • Roebuck was built with two rows of windows in the stern, giving the illusion of an extra deck but behind was a single-level cabin.
Consider the word "them" betweem behind and was.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When fully manned, Roebuck had a complement of 280.
Consider adding this after 280 - officers and enlisted men.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service:

  • On 9 October she was in action on the Hudson, with HMS Phoenix and HMS Tartar, where she destroyed two armed galleys and forced her way up the river, whilst engaging, on either side, the two forts Washington and Lee.
  • The proper name of the Hudson is the Hudson River.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consdier adding "of" between forts and Washington.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hearing of the encounter Roebuck set off in pursuit of the American vessel but was unable to locate her.
On hearing of the encounter is an introductory phrase and needs a comma after encounter.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamond's familiarity with the local waters meant that Roebuck, which had hitherto been involved in operations in the Delaware River, ...
Consider "on" the Deleware River instead of in.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 1777, the British were planning to land an army at the head of the River Elk ...
The proper name of the river is the Elk River.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamond, offered to force a channel at Billing's Point if Howe could muster ...
Consider removing the comma after Hammond and placing it after point.
Done. Left over from a previous change to that sentence.[[18]]--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsuccessful attempts to take the Forts Mifflin and Mercer meant the British were subjected to heavy fire when they engaged the American flotilla at the Battle of Red Bank.
  • Place the word "at" after forts.
Mifflin and Mercer were the names of the forts and adding an "at" would, in my opinion, make them sound like locations.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge University dictionary defines "at" in this way: "in a particular place or position", I’ll leave the decision to you. Pendright (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The forts are named after persons, not locations. I could refer to them as "the forts at Red Bank" but I would need to reference their location in the previous paragraph. I'm happy to do that but I'm more worried about the clumsiness of introducing a second "Red Bank" into the same sentence: "Unsuccessful attempts to take the forts at Red Bank meant the six British vessels were subjected to heavy fire when they engaged the American flotilla at the Battle of Red Bank.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, these forts were named after people but they were also places settled by the military and people. The context of "Unsuccessful attempts to take the Forts Mifflin and Mercer …" seems to reference places. I think, as we say in the Western U.S., we’re kicking a dead horse so let’s move on. Pendright (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace the word were with "would be".
I think there is some confusion here. The fort which was carried by the two regiments from Chester was the fort at Billingsport (I've added a link to make this clearer). The two forts of Mifflin and Mercer weren't captured until November so the British vessels were subjected to heavy fire during the Battle of Red Bank in October.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I stand corrected! Pendright (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed to this point. Pendright (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... blew up; after which Roebuck and the remaining force broke off the attack and returned to Billingsport.
Do you mean Billing's Point?
Done. I wasn't sure whether they were different locations, so faithfully copied the usage in the source. On rechecking, the source does actually say that Billing's Point is now called Billingsport so I've removed reference to the archaic name.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 1778, Roebuck was at Sandy Hook, near New York Bay and in August, she ...
  • Near New York Bay is not essential to the meaning of the sentence so it shoud be set-off by commas.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comma after August?
Done. Left over from a previous incarnation of the sentence, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • France had entered the war in February that year and on 29 July, the French fleet from Toulon, commanded by Charles Hector, comte d'Estaing, arrived in Narragansett Bay and began attacking British positions on Conanicut and Goat Island the next day.
France entered the war on behalf of the Americans. A reader might assume this, but might it be better to say it.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 8 August, 4,000 French soldiers and sailors were landed to reinforce the 10,000 American troops who had just crossed from the mainland to lay siege to the British garrison on Rhode Island.
I wonder if Lay siege fits here, Consider replacing "lay siege to" with "attacked".
Done. Although, I think "lay siege to" is probably okay, given that the source says the garrison was "...hemmed in by vastly superior forces, by land and by sea".--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several days of manoeuvring in which both parties sought the weather gage were curtailed by a violent gale which scattered the fleets.
..."sought the weather gage" should probably be set-off by commas.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roebuck captured an American privateer in February 1779 before setting sail for Woolwich where she underwent a refit and had her hull sheathed in copper.
Consider a comma after 1779.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pause here: Pendright (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roebuck returned to American waters by 5 December 1779, when she took the American privateer, Lady Washington.
  • Since the date is specific, would on be preferable to by?
Unfortunately sources don't say when she arrived in American waters. We only know she was there on or before 5 December because the capture of Lady Washington was recorded. Hence, "by".--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of took, Captured might be better understood.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the command of Admiral Marriot Arbuthnot, the ships left New York on 26 December and in January 1780, in need of repairs, called in at Savannah, captured by the British the previous month.
  • Since a specific date is used for the departure, it would seem consistent to use a specific date for the docking of repairs?
Again, sources don't give a precise date.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think a reader would be interested in knowing whether the need for repairs was minor or major; if major - what, to whom, and how long?
Yes, but again sources aren't specific. One source, which I'm unable to locate at the moment, infers that the damage was the result of an almost constant storm during the trip from New York so I imagine the repairs were to spars, sails and rigging.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Savannah worthy of linking?
I think so. Although it's clearly an important city in the US, I don't think it's well known outside.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From there, the convoy proceeded to the North Edisto River where the army disembarked on 10 February.
Consider adding the date the convoy got underway.
Another case of sources don't say, I'm afraid.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The troops marched the 30 miles (48 km) overland and occupied James Island while the ships sailed to the entrance and effected a blockade of Charleston harbour.
A comma after James Island will separate two complete thoughts.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of Roebuck's company were among the 450 seamen and marines later sent to lay siege to the town.
  • were should be changed to was.
This is an Engvar thing. In British English, are/were can be used with collective nouns.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Thanks, good to know! Pendright (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is how the Cambridge University Dictionary defines siege: "the act of surrounding a place by an armed force in order to defeat those defending it"
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the Siege of Charleston wasn't a siege?--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Nope! The point was raised this way only because the term lay siege, or the word “siege” is used two or three times. Though, my point could have been better made. If the circumstances fit the definition, then that should settle it. Pendright (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have left that but removed some other references to siege, including one in the title. Hopefully that's helped with the repetiveness.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crew of Roebuck were awarded a share of the prize money for the frigates Boston and Providence.
The crew was awarded ...
As above.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamond was ordered to England with dispatches on 15 May 1780, ...
"with dispatches": unclear?
Dispatches are official reports. Do you think it's an uncommon word that needs further explanation?--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>It might depend on where one lives or where one is employed. For my part, I have the notion that mail or a person usually dispatches messages or reports. If you fell otherwise, let it stand. Pendright (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The message was received too late however and Romulus was thus alone ...
However is not essential to the meaning of the sentence - in which case it should be set-off by commas.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Roebuck was cruising with HMS Orpheus off the Delaware on 14 April 1781,
Looks like it should be Delaware Bay.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following month, Roebuck was with HMS Medea when she captured the 28-gun Protector near Sandy Hook.
If Medea participated in the capture,then it should be they and not she.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolutionary Wars:

  • Dutch surrendered in the Vlieter roadstead, on 30 August 1799.
  • The definite article "the" should preceede Dutch.
Are we looking at different things? The sentence already says,"...and to which the Dutch surrendered in the Vlieter roadstead..."--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comma after Vlieter roadstead?
Done. I think I was confused by which of the two preceeding events occured on that date.--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • French intervention in the Dutch Republic and subsequent exile of William V, Prince of Orange in January 1795, led to the formation of the French allied, Batavian Republic, upon which Britain immediately declared war.
The definite article "the" should preceede French.
Done. Although that makes it sound like a single event and not the constant meddling that it was.--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • Roebuck participated in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 until 1782. And it seems she never sustained any damages from enemy fire or by enemy forces; damaged only by a storm. Curiosity led me to a random Google search, which produced a source that says otherwise:
  • "In action on the-lower Hudson River, Roebuck was one of the three-ship squadron fired upon and badly damaged by the guns of Fort Washington on 9 October 1776."
Although I don't doubt that being subjected to fire from two forts would result in damage, my sources don't mention any. They do say that 9 were killed among the three ships, which doesn't sound catastrophic. Can you direct me to the source you've found?--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "at the capitulation of Charleston on 11 may 1780; Roebuck was again badly damaged heading the line past the guns of Fort Moultrie."
I think the phrase "exchanged heavy fire" infers there was damage on both sides but I've added a bit about the damage incurred to the British squadron as a whole. My sources don't indicate which ships were damaged in what way.--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Inference can suffice here, but showing both sides of an issue provides balance – which is my point. Pendright (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, as you say, you are taking the article to the next level, consider these sugestions:
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request a copyedit.

Section headings:

  • Consider changing the section title of "Siege of Charleston", with something without the word siege.
Done. Is "operations against..." better?--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service in Delaware: Since Roebuck was a warship, naybe on the Delaware River, the Delaware Bay, or perhaps the Delaware waterway?
As less than half that paragraph refers to operations around Delaware, I've decided to change to "Blockade duty" as this was Roebuck's main role during this final period of the war. I hope that's an improvement.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Pendright (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Thanks for undertaking such a comprehensive review, your comments have been most helpful. I think I've addressed all your points but if you feel there is anything outstanding, or you have further comments, please let me know.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: I’m pleased to support this nomination. Thank you for addressing all of my comments in such a pleasant manner. Good luck at the next level. Pendright (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Please change cites 2 and 3 to match the title used in the references.
  • References are from reputable publishers and authors and are high-quality RS
  • Refs and cites are properly formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Roebuck_(1774)&oldid=910329577"