The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [1].

Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Another Napoleonic order of battle in the same vein as Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo. This order of battle is for a very complex campaign and I've done my best to simplify it, but let me know if it istill not clear. There are also some gaps in the sources that have resulted in gaps in the list, but they are not significant to understanding the information. All comments welcome. Regards Jackyd101 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets the criteria as far as I can make out. A great list, excellent work. Woody (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woody's resolved issues
A few comments from me: Can we reword the second sentence in the lead a bit? To me it currently reads that Napoleon had a crushing victory at Trafalgar. Could it be reworded to something like. I don't know, I have tried to reword it in my head and I can't see any way to reword it. If you can't no bother, it is probably just the way I am reading it. I see what you mean, and have simplified the sentance. I am not a fan of empty cells in tables. In Leissègues' squadron, do we not know those two commanders? If not, perhaps add "Not known" into the table or a dash? The same goes for the other Commander cells in other sections. Do we have more specifics regarding "Keats' squadron also included two other ships of the line." Apart from that, this looks very good to me. It meets the criteria in my opinion. It is well presented, the summaries are well written and informative. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] All the rest of these points are to do with a lack of information in the tables. The problems here are that the sources I have available do not contain the required information and I have been unable to locate it despite extensive searches. However it is possible that this information can be discovered in sources not easily accessible to me (i.e. French sources). Thus I'm not keen to make a definitive statement that this information is "Not Known" in the table, and a dash is not very helpful (I've always seen it as a sort of "N/A" which also doesn't really apply here.) Thus in the absence of another solution I would prefer to keep them blank, although if you/others insist I am happy to reconsider. Thanks for your comments, --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I agree that a dash is used to to signify that there is no information at all about a particular issue, as opposed to a blank cell for unknown info. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woody's resolved issues

A few comments from me:

Can we reword the second sentence in the lead a bit? To me it currently reads that Napoleon had a crushing victory at Trafalgar. Could it be reworded to something like. I don't know, I have tried to reword it in my head and I can't see any way to reword it. If you can't no bother, it is probably just the way I am reading it.

I see what you mean, and have simplified the sentance.

I am not a fan of empty cells in tables. In Leissègues' squadron, do we not know those two commanders? If not, perhaps add "Not known" into the table or a dash?
The same goes for the other Commander cells in other sections.
Do we have more specifics regarding "Keats' squadron also included two other ships of the line."
Apart from that, this looks very good to me. It meets the criteria in my opinion. It is well presented, the summaries are well written and informative. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the rest of these points are to do with a lack of information in the tables. The problems here are that the sources I have available do not contain the required information and I have been unable to locate it despite extensive searches. However it is possible that this information can be discovered in sources not easily accessible to me (i.e. French sources). Thus I'm not keen to make a definitive statement that this information is "Not Known" in the table, and a dash is not very helpful (I've always seen it as a sort of "N/A" which also doesn't really apply here.) Thus in the absence of another solution I would prefer to keep them blank, although if you/others insist I am happy to reconsider. Thanks for your comments, --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a dash is used to to signify that there is no information at all about a particular issue, as opposed to a blank cell for unknown info. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Diaa
Comments The totally empty Notes Columns should be removed, like Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Cochrane.27s_squadron.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I believe that this time ((Harvnb)) would help a lot for things like "Source: James, p. 262" So I wouldn't have to scroll down the whole page check for what book this came from.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think this list is really hard to comprehend, since it's a campaign and not a battle. Why not just split the list into the different battles or arrange the list into the different battles with a section for every battle? This would make this imho a lot easier.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think your other points are sensible and I will address them in due course, but your final point is not possible - read Atlantic campaign of 1806 and you will see that there was only one battle and that is already presented in Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo. The rest of the campaign was, as described, a confusing series of manoeuveres without clearly defined engagements or sections and I genuinely can't think of a better way to illustrate this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've tried the Harvard thing in the article on the citations in the first table, but all it did was make the citations blue - can you explain what I'm doing wrong?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's just not working I guess...Probably because you have a multitude of volumes in your list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Casualities (Killed, wounded, total) is needed for each table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] As explained above, this is for a campaign rather than a battle, so there were few ships with casualties outside the Battle of San Domingo which is covered elsewhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The rate of each Ship should be in the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I can do this, but why do you think it is important in this context as long as you have the number of guns? Wikilink the squadrons to their sections. For example: "On 6 February, Leissègues was surprised at anchor by a squadron under Vice-Admiral Sir John Thomas Duckworth" wikilink "squadron" to Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Duckworth.27s_squadron Do you mean in the lead?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] There are conflicts between Order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_San_Domingo#French_squadron and Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Leiss.C3.A8gues.27_squadron. It says there that the fleet left on "15 December" while here it says "13 December". And while you're at it fix the links of "Cornète" and "Diligente" Done Create an overview table at the top of the list (In a new section maybe), listing the various squadrons names, ship numbers, engadges and to which Country they belonged to. With links to their relative sections. This could replace the TOC or you could have both. I think this would really improve this list...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm a bit unsure how this would assist/improve the TOC - surely if people want this information all they have to do is read the tables? After reading a bit in this list I really admire Admiral Duckworth.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments, I have replied above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Could u please add some images to the various sections, such as Images of the ships in battle or the admirals..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Two images added - is this enough? You wikilinked London Gazette in the references three times. Its part of a template, so I can't delink it. Could u remove the notes column in "Admiral Warren's second squadron", "Admiral Strachan's first squadron" and Admiral Cochrane's squadron, or fill them with information. I've added some notes, but to be honest I prefer the tables are uniform in format rather than simply cutting notes sections because some happen to be empty. (Besides, it is possible that additional notes may come to light in the future). Replies above -regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments

The totally empty Notes Columns should be removed, like Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Cochrane.27s_squadron.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this time ((Harvnb)) would help a lot for things like "Source: James, p. 262" So I wouldn't have to scroll down the whole page check for what book this came from.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list is really hard to comprehend, since it's a campaign and not a battle. Why not just split the list into the different battles or arrange the list into the different battles with a section for every battle? This would make this imho a lot easier.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your other points are sensible and I will address them in due course, but your final point is not possible - read Atlantic campaign of 1806 and you will see that there was only one battle and that is already presented in Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo. The rest of the campaign was, as described, a confusing series of manoeuveres without clearly defined engagements or sections and I genuinely can't think of a better way to illustrate this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the Harvard thing in the article on the citations in the first table, but all it did was make the citations blue - can you explain what I'm doing wrong?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not working I guess...Probably because you have a multitude of volumes in your list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualities (Killed, wounded, total) is needed for each table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, this is for a campaign rather than a battle, so there were few ships with casualties outside the Battle of San Domingo which is covered elsewhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rate of each Ship should be in the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this, but why do you think it is important in this context as long as you have the number of guns?

Wikilink the squadrons to their sections. For example: "On 6 February, Leissègues was surprised at anchor by a squadron under Vice-Admiral Sir John Thomas Duckworth" wikilink "squadron" to Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Duckworth.27s_squadron

Do you mean in the lead?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are conflicts between Order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_San_Domingo#French_squadron and Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Leiss.C3.A8gues.27_squadron. It says there that the fleet left on "15 December" while here it says "13 December". And while you're at it fix the links of "Cornète" and "Diligente"

Done

Create an overview table at the top of the list (In a new section maybe), listing the various squadrons names, ship numbers, engadges and to which Country they belonged to. With links to their relative sections. This could replace the TOC or you could have both. I think this would really improve this list...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unsure how this would assist/improve the TOC - surely if people want this information all they have to do is read the tables?

After reading a bit in this list I really admire Admiral Duckworth.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I have replied above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September

2009 (UTC)

Could u please add some images to the various sections, such as Images of the ships in battle or the admirals..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two images added - is this enough?

You wikilinked London Gazette in the references three times.

Its part of a template, so I can't delink it.

Could u remove the notes column in "Admiral Warren's second squadron", "Admiral Strachan's first squadron" and Admiral Cochrane's squadron, or fill them with information.

I've added some notes, but to be honest I prefer the tables are uniform in format rather than simply cutting notes sections because some happen to be empty. (Besides, it is possible that additional notes may come to light in the future).

Replies above -regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support issues resolved, meets FL criterias.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Mostly beautifully written; I just have a couple of pointers. Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences should not have sentence-ending punctuation. "blocking the passage that Willaumez must take to attack the valuable Jamaica convoy" "must take" is in present tense, and is inconsistent with the article. "These forces served the dual purpose of containing the French warships still at anchor in the ports and restricting the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." Can excise redundancy and reduce wordiness? "These forces s~~erved the dual purpose of containing~~ contained the French warships still at anchor in the ports and ~~restricting~~ restricted the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." If you really want emphasis, add "both" before "contained". There are two Gardiner books used, but the inline citations do not specify which is used. Same for the James books. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments - I've done all of the above except the first one - can you possibly provide some examples of what you consider "Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences" so I can differentiate?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I fixed these myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Mostly beautifully written; I just have a couple of pointers.

Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences should not have sentence-ending punctuation.
"blocking the passage that Willaumez must take to attack the valuable Jamaica convoy" "must take" is in present tense, and is inconsistent with the article.
"These forces served the dual purpose of containing the French warships still at anchor in the ports and restricting the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." Can excise redundancy and reduce wordiness? "These forces s~~erved the dual purpose of containing~~ contained the French warships still at anchor in the ports and ~~restricting~~ restricted the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." If you really want emphasis, add "both" before "contained".
There are two Gardiner books used, but the inline citations do not specify which is used. Same for the James books. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - I've done all of the above except the first one - can you possibly provide some examples of what you consider "Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences" so I can differentiate?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed these myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - on par with previous order of battle lists. I would, however, suggest that the addition of more images would improve the list. Geraldk (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.