Former good articleWilliam Brown (admiral) was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 22, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Nom Comments[edit]

I dropped by to review the article for GA and have a few quick comments. First, the article is interesting, seems complete and has a good number of references. It needs some attention yet

The main problem in terms of GA is that the lead section does not meet WP:LEAD. Please read the standard and adjust to meet it.

In terms of language. It's clear but there are some stylistic issues that make it hard to read in spots. I'll give examples later, but this is a problem for me.

While it wouldn't prevent me from promoting the article, some attention to completing the references would be helpful. THey do not, as a rule, contain the author, publisher, place and date of references. I know this isn't always possible, especially with web sources, but should be there if available. May I suggest consulting a print source or three to lend credibility to the article.

I'll also put the article on hold later, if another reviewer doesn't get here first. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I've improved the lead section as per WP:LEAD, I've edited all references in the page as per WP:CITE, and as you suggested I've added some printed sources to the article (see Further reading section). Regarding the "stylistic issues" about the language, as you can see in the history page spelling and typos were fixed several times by different native English speakers; if the prose still represents a problem for you, it would be nice to hear some examples.
Hope the page now meets Wikipedia's good article standards. Thanks for your time, --200.89.166.132 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies. Real life did not allow me to get back here as I hoped. YOu've done some good work here. Citations and the lead look fine now, and the article is now readable. I'll promote it, although it could still use some improvement. I'd recommend:
  • Shorten Sentences: English readers, especially Americans, find it easier to read sentences that have one or two clauses and one subject so: "A short time after the arrival, the friend who had invited them out and offered them food and hospitality died of yellow fever, and several days later, William's father also succumbed to the same disease." Is awkward.
  • Keep Subject-Main Verb-Object together: In the same sentence, try: "shortly after they arrived, a friend died of yellow fever. William's father died of the same disease a few days later."
  • Avoid passives: These slaw down readers and make the passage feel "fuzzy" to them. For example, "Brown's ship was seized by a French man-of-war, and he was made a prisoner" could be "a French man-of-war seized Brown's ship and imprisoned him."
I hope this helps. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I dislike this dislike of passives. They are a perfectly legitimate part of the English language, and should not provide any difficulties for native speakers. To me "a French man-of-war seized Brown's ship and imprisoned him." produces images of a ship throwing Brown into prison; the passive is more accurate. -- Arwel (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Passives are a valid part of the English language, but the particular objection seems a little silly - "Brown's ship was seized by a French man-of-war, and he was made a prisoner" can create the same image. The real reason to the passive should be maintained is that the emphasis of should be on Brown and Brown's ship, this not being an article on the French man-o-war & all.
That said, too many passives does make for dull, sloggish reading. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA status?[edit]

Should we try to get this article up to Featured Article status in time for next March's anniversary? I think it would be nice if we could get on the main page on March 3rd, but I may be a little close to the article and unable to see problems, so I'd appreciate comments from outside! The article appears to be a nice length, not excessively long or in too many sections, no problems with any of the pictures' copyright status, etc. -- Arwel (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Brown's religious affiliation and national identity[edit]

Brown is buried in recoleta cemetery with his daughter. His wife is not. This is because you had to at least nominally catholic to buried there at the time.

Fintan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.47.169 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There would be secondary evidence that William Brown was a Protestant, probably of the Church of Ireland. This evidence is (i) the absence of any Roman Catholic records in Ireland or Argentina, (ii) his wife's religion, and (iii) his financial contributions to Protestant works in Argentina.

As for WB's national identity, it is doubted that he considered himself Irish. According to Mike Geraghty, the Union Jack was hoisted on his ships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.62.160.133 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

protestant??? please, read a book just one time, they don't BITE!!!!! LAYER! He is Catholic .
He was persecuted in USA for being Catholic , so, do not post supossing messages please, thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.108.83 (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irish and British identity are not necessarily incompatible, just as wives' religions aren't evidence of much, human feelings being what they are. That said, let's do try to remember to give people the benefit of some doubt and keep civil.
Also, "LAYER"? -LlywelynII (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with the notion that William Brown considered himself English. When according to his Chief biographer, John De Courcy Ireland he donated large sums of money to Daniel O Connell who at the time was engaged in a campaign to Repeal the Act of Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin5150 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that this conversation is long dead and over a decade old, but as this is the type of thing that tends to be brought up many times over the course of an individual article I thought I'd add a source to put at least the religious angle to rest. "In 1809 William married Eliza Chitty, and it was agreed that any daughters of the marriage would be brought up in Eliza’s religion (Anglican) and sons in William’s (Catholic)." https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/almirante-william-brown/ So Brown's wife was Protestant, but he himself was Catholic and interested in making sure his sons were as well. ComradeKublai (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the football clubs[edit]

Almirante Brown de Isidro Cassanova and Almirante Brown the San Justo are the same team. The club head-cuarters are in San Justo and the field is located in Isidro Casanova.--furgonero 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info, I'll fix it right now. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Sweeps (on hold)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reassessing the article, I have found that despite its high quality there are some issues that should be addressed. These are:

I will check back in no less than seven days (around 19th October). If progress is being made and the issues above have been addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). Should this happen, it can be improved and renominated at WP:GAN.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA delist

Thank you for the work undertaken so far. However, following the expiry of the hold period, there are still some issues remaining to be addressed. I have therefore reluctantly delisted this article as a Good article. If improvements are made to bring the article up to standards, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. EyeSereneTALK 09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British English vs. American English.[edit]

Certain paragraphs of the article are in British English, while others are in American English. For the sake of consistency, the article should feature only one dialect, not two. I'd fix this myself, but since I'm not a native speaker of English, it'd be better if someone who is did this instead. --190.19.12.231 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion To "Last Years" section of biography.[edit]

I wish to insert into the "Last Years" section some information from John De Courcy-Irelands book on Brown, "The Admiral from Mayo". Specifically his reference to Browns donations to poorhouses and his donation to Daniel O Connell in his Campaign to Repeal the Union of Britain and Ireland.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin5150 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inconsistencies?[edit]

In Battle of Juncal

The two squadrons were initially of roughly equal strength, but because...

But in this article (War With Brazil):

...and at the hard-fought Battle of Juncal (February 24, 1827), with seven ships and eight 1-gun launches he destroyed the entire opposing Brazilian squadron of seventeen ships and took its commander prisoner.

(Sounds as though he was at a disadvantage since the opposing forces are not enumerated as to type)

Leonard G. (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced claims in background section[edit]

There seems to be a bit of misty eyed myth making here. Is there any evidence that his Uncle was a Franciscan priest? The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't even claim he was Catholic at all. With a name like "William Brown" it is very likely that he was of very recent Protestant Planter background. - Rí Lughaid (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We know that he contributed funds to Daniel O'Connell's Repeal Movement. However we do need some references Lugnad (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Brown (admiral). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on William Brown (admiral). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix wiki box, [Ireland]][edit]

Someone when writing the wikibox accidentally left out one of the brackets. This is a minor edit, and I would fix it myself, but I don't know how to edit the wikibox. Could someone fix it and tell me how? Or just tell me how and I can fix it ComradeKublai (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I fixed it and realized that the wikibox is just edited in the main body (I was looking for a special button to edit it).

ComradeKublai (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories