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.

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Temeraire (1798)[edit]

Nominator(s): Benea (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because having passed a GA review, and carried out further tweaks and fixes, I believe this article meets all 5 criteria. Benea (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it not be better if the "sale and disposal" and "last voyage" sections were merged? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keen not to do that. That last voyage, or more specifically its depiction by Turner, is the primary reason why this ship, out of all the British Napoleonic-era sailing ships with the exception of Victory, is remembered, and I think benefits from being kept separate from the formulaic procedure of the decommissioning of a warship that Temeraire went through. Benea (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources and citations; some concerns regarding primaries with an explanation needed: Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
    • Date please!: Clayton, Tim; Craig, Phil. Trafalgar: The Men, the Battle, the Storm. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
      • Date added.
  • Citations
    • fn36: I hope Warwick provides a narrative commentary, and that you aren't sourcing from a primary source in a source book? Correspondingly with all Warwick citations, "Voices" seems suspiciously like a source book to me.
      • I hope I can lay your suspicions to rest. Warwick provides ample commentary.
        • Laid to rest. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes:
    • Note C. what citation does Warwick provide for Lucas' statement? We need to cite their cite.
      • He does not provide specific citations, merely a bibliography at the end of the book, including a variety of archives and books. A small excerpt from Lucas's letter appears in Willis, simply cited to a 1933 translation of E. Desbriere's work The Naval Campaign of 1805, Trafalgar.
        • How frustrating, your current citation is fine, but Warwick is a naughty author. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note D. is this a quote from Willis, or a quote _within_ Willis? If Willis is quoting someone else, we need to cite Willis' cite; as well as citing Willis.
      • Willis is citing Harvey. If you give me an example of how Willis's cite should be rendered in this context, I would be pleased to cite it.
        • Eliab Harvey (Date). Document Title. finding method. as cited in Willis. The Fighting Temeraire. p. 192. For example, "Eliab Harvey (1830). Published record of my voyages. London: Hammer & Sons. as cited in..." or "Eliab Harvey (12 November 1815). Letter to his wife. National Archives collection ABC123 box 13. as cited in..." Depends how much detail Willis gives us, and transform it into the style you're using for other citations. Unpublished documents don't take "Quotes" or Italics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cite added.
• SupportSuggestions: I have a few suggestions. Feel free to ignore if you don't agree: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to the Featured article tools, there is one disambig link that might need fixing: [1];
    • Fixed
  • the infobox says: "Laid down: July 1793", but the Construction section in the body says: "Temeraire was laid down at Chatham in July 1791"
    • A slip of the mind I think, the infobox is correct.
  • WP:MOSTIME issues: "7.30 am", should be "7:30 am", etc. (there are other examples);
    • Corrected where I've found them.
  • "Having done so they refused orders to open them again, jeered the officers and threatened violence". I think you need a comma after "Having done so";
    • Added a comma.
  • "command of Captain Edwin H Chamberlayne". I think you need a full stop after "H" to indicate that it is an initial;
    • Fixed
  • quotation marks: per MOS:PUNCT, I think you need to use double quotation marks rather than single. An example is here: "The survey reported that she was 'A well built and strong ship but apparently much decay'd'."
    • Fixed all the ones I could find.
  • "In choosing his title Turner created a enduring appellation..." I think "a enduring" should be "an enduring";
    • Fixed
  • in Note b, I think there is a typo here: ", the other two were to received one hundred and twenty lashes each" (specificially "received"). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, fixed.
      • Thanks for making those changes. I've added my support now. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• A nice article. Minor thoughts below:
• "Copper sheathing" - worth a short phrase to explain that this was to protect against worms etc.?
  • There are a number of motives for applying copper sheathing. Rather than select one or two over the others, or deviate a little from the topic of the article with a fuller explanation, I think the link is the better option.
• "Under Eyles's command Temeraire finally put to sea that July," - we're really talking about the very end of July (between the 28 to 31st by my reckoning), whereas "that July" suggests a wider timeframe.
  • I've clarified this to 'the end of July'
• 'I'll thank you, Captain Harvey, to keep in your proper station, which is astern of the Victory'. - The MOS recommends double speech marks I think for this and the other quotes in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed as above.

Note It's been more than 30 days since the ACR was opened; if nobody turns up during the next two days, I might have to close it as "No consensus". --Sp33dyphil © • © 01:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to not have addressed this sooner, I have been travelling for the last nine days and have only just returned. I will work to address the points raised, and hopefully some more reviewers can be found in time. Benea (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: has everything I want to see. I'm no sufficient prose editor, but it looks like the others have taken a look at that. Referencing, scope, and organisation all fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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