Comments: Very good list (and article).
- The lead reads nicely, but I am not sure that it is clear what is included in the list (scope) after reading it. Could you add something to the effect that it is a list of participating ships and casualities.
I will work on this. I've had a go, let me know what you think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. Not sure what the MOS says about italics, but fine for me.
- Could you make the columns sortable?
- As explained above, the table are arranged in the order of battle as per the title. This means that the ships are listed in the sequence they were deployed in during the battle. Making them sortable would dilute this effect. The lists are quite short in any case and I can't really see any benefit in making them sortable: what details would need sorting?
- It is good that the tables are arranged in the order of battle and I would not want to change it. What I suggest is to make them automagically sortable as per Help:Sorting which does not require much work for the editor and gives an added advantage for the reader (to see which ship suffered most/second most/... casualties and so on). Basically all columns except for "Notes" could be made sortable. The present order could be left as default order so nothing is lost.
- I've had a go, but the header lines seem to disrupt the sorting.
- Possibly this could help, but I am not an expert in advanced sorting tables either. Alternatively headers like "Rear-Admiral Nelson's fleet", "Vice-Admiral Brueys' fleet" and "Line of battle" (Why two headers for the French fleet?) could be removed from the table and put in a short text just before the respective tables. Same for the colspans at the bottom of the table.
- Did you consider marking ships that were destroyed somehow (by color for instance)? If it is useful you could also mark varying degrees of damage.
- I could mark the destroyed ships, although note that the "Notes" column already does this by giving details on degrees of damage / causes of destruction. I'm loathe to highlight the ships based on the level of damage as this factor is relative and can vary quite widely - two heavily damaged ships can be damaged in completely different ways.
- Agreed about not marking damaged ships. I would mark the destroyed ships, since it is faster for the reader to see that only French ships were destroyed.
- On reflection, I'm quite reluctant to do this. There were four French ships destroyed, but each was destroyed in very different circumstances, and grouping them together in this context seems quite forced. In addition, three French ships were destroyed by their captors three weeks after the battle as the damage they suffered was too severe for them to sail ever again. Three more ships were so badly damaged that they were unable to serve as frontline warships and were eventually scrapped. Thus highlighting the ships that were destroyed seems a bit like using a roller to paint a portrait: it irons out a lot of the detail (which is already included in the lead and the notes column).
- Good point. Done.
- If there is only one number in the "Casualties" column of the French fleet, does it refer to those wounded (or killed or total)? You might want to add "0" like for the British list.
- If there is one number, it is because the Killed/Wounded/Total boxes have been bypassed and so this is a total casualties figure (note how the boxes have been merged). The reason why the figure is not broken down further is that I have not been able to locate sources giving a more precise total. I'm not sure what you mean by the 0?
- If it is the total number, wouldn't it be more natural to put it into the "Total" column (and question marks in the "Killed/Wounded" columns)? (The numbers which are now centered appear as if they belong to the "Wounded" column, that's why I suggested to add "0" to the "killed" column...)
- I can do this perhaps, although it looks pretty messy. What should I do about the "Heavy" and "Light" entries?
- I don't have any really good suggestion. (A footnote saying that these numbers are for total casualties?) Maybe another reviewer is more creative than me?
- I am not sure if "Heavy" and "Light" are proper words to combine with "Casualties" (rather with losses)!?
- They are standard terms in military history texts.
- OK, am not familiar with such texts.
- Why did you choose to give precise numbers of casualties for the British fleet and a range for the French fleet? (even though note A says that there are various numbers in literature).
- Because precise numbers exist for the British fleet (as given in the table) but they don't for the French. The footnote just gives a bit more detail into the range of figures available for both sides.
- I think I got it. Because William Laird Clowes is the only one who gives numbers for every ship. Correct?
bamse (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, although William James gives totals for most of the British ships which are identical to Clowes' figures (he just doesn't present it in a table).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your comments. I will work on the first one you raised, and have given answers above explaining problems with enacting the others. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome. 5. (and probably "6. as well) is done. I'd like to see "4." addressed since it is confusing (at least to me) without further explanation. Don't feel strongly about "3.", but "2." would be a good feature to have in my opinion. bamse (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "3." and "1." done. With "4." let's wait for other reviewers. If it is not confusing for them, it can be considered done. Just one more quick question: Why are the French ships rated according to the Rating system of the Royal Navy? Was there no French rating system at the time?bamse (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain whether the French had a formal rating system (although a possibly informal one is often hinted at in histories). Here it is used for comparative purposes. I could delink the rate column on that table if that would help? On a wider note, thankyou very much for your interest and comments, they have been very helpful. On the outstanding issues I'd like to wait for more input from a broader consensus before I do anything at this stage. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Following additional input below, I have clarified the heavy and light casualties sections - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|