Talk:Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1780)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Benea (talk · contribs) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll start this review in the next day or so, if not before. Benea (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are some details in the lead that do not appear in the article body, such as the moonlight name, that is was the first major naval victory, etc. Generally either all the information in the lead should be cited, or none of it. The single cite used would be better off used in the article body somewhere to cover the information, which can then be summarised in the lead.
 * I think I've addressed this.  Magic ♪piano 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would remove the single cite in the lead and place it instead at the end of the first sentence in the last paragraph of the 'aftermath' section, and then I think this will have been addressed.
 * Try to avoid overly wordy sentences, for example cut 'consequently' from 'The Spanish consequently planned to retake...' Fixed  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Giving chase with their faster copper clad ships, the British determined these to be a Spanish supply convoy' - the order is somewhat confusing. Did the British decide they were a convoy and so give chase, or did they send ships to investigate (rather than chase per se), which then reported their identity and cause a general chase, or did the British immediately sail after them with their whole fleet? This third option seems unlikely, would Rodney really have deviated from his mission to hunt down these strange ships without being aware what they were?
 * The basic source for this appears to be Rodney's report of the event. He says that he "gave chase"link.  Syrett describes Rodney as leaving the convoy with one warship while the rest chased.  No source I've seen implies that Rodney knew what the sails were before giving the chase order (although you're correct that this sounds aggressive, even for Rodney); neither do any sources particularly say otherwise.  Magic ♪piano 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hyphenate terms like 'copper clad ships', and 'copper sheathed hulls'. Fixed  Magic ♪piano 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'to sail with speed for Cádiz.' This is an imprecise term. 'Make all sail for Cadiz' perhaps? Fixed  Magic ♪piano 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reword 'At 4:00 pm, after two hours of chase, the battle finally began.' Try 'The chase lasted two hours, with the battle beginning at 4.00 pm'? Fixed  Magic ♪piano 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'losing all hands but one' - with the loss of all but one of her crew. Fixed  Magic ♪piano 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Marlborough and Ajax then passed Princessa, which was finally engaged in an hour-long battle with HMS Bedford before striking her colours at about 5:30' - I understand the sequence of events, but it is not especially clear. Marlborough and Ajax passed by Princessa to engage ships further up the Spanish line, while Bedford, which was further back in the British line, then came up and engaged Princessa directly. Can this be reworded to clarify this? Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These references to masts or parts of masts being shot down reads a little oddly in my experience of accounts of naval warfare. 'shot away' is more conventional I think. Fixed  Magic ♪piano 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Broadsided in passing by HMS Montagu and HMS Prince George, Fenix had her mizzenmast shot down, and Lángara was wounded before she finally surrendered to HMS Bienfaisant, which arrived late in the battle but shot down her mainmast. Due to an outbreak of smallpox on his ship, Bienfaisant's Captain John MacBride, rather than sending over a possibly infected prize crew, apprised Lángara of the situation and put him and his crew on parole.' Two fairly long and complex sentences with numerous clauses. Can these be broken up and simplified? Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * '2:00 am the following morning. At 9:15...' The changing of the time and date involved here is a little confusing. Perhaps the fact that the battle lasted until 2.00 am can be moved to the conclusion of the account of the battle. Be sure to use am and pm when you are using times as well. Removed the 2 am sentence.  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'That battle' - rather than using the term battle for the smaller elements of this main battle, perhaps use some other term like engagement, just to keep the distinction. Reworded  Magic ♪piano 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'shooting off' - shooting away, as before. Fixed  Magic ♪piano 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'ended the battle with a broadside, unaware that Monarca had already hauled down her flag' - so Monarca had already ended the engagement by surrendering, presumably on the arrival of the powerful Sandwich? In that case Sandwich did not end the battle herself.
 * There was an exchange between Rodney and the Apollo's commander indicating that the Monarca had hauled her flag down before the Sandwich fired. So it is technically true that the battle was arguably formally over before the Sandwich fired, although it is not state why the Monarca chose the moment it did to strike.  Magic ♪piano 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've recast this bit to clarify the apparent sequence of events.  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article uses the Spanish version of Cádiz throughout with the diacritic, but with the renaming of the page, this should probably be standardised for the English wikipedia to Cadiz. Changed  Magic ♪piano 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'ended with the end of the war' - 'the siege was lifted' perhaps to avoid repeating 'end' Changed  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'distinguished himself for the remainder of the war, notably winning the 1782 Battle of the Saintes in which he captured the French Admiral Comte de Grasse. He was, however, criticised by Captain Young, who portrayed him in this battle as weak and indecisive' - distinguished himself 'during' instead. Which battle did Young criticise him for, the Saintes, or Cape St. Vincent? Clarified  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * In a way it is a shame that the article depends so heavily on older sources like Beatson, Rodney's despatches, Mahan, etc, for some important details. It would be interesting if more recent and modern scholarship could produce clearer answers about the ships present for example, but I understand that this is not covered in the more modern sources used.
 * The only really good modern account of this battle I've seen is by Syrett, who synthesizes an account, but also reprints many primary documents. My general practice is to cite older works (which can be read by many editors online), using modern works as a check on them.  Magic ♪piano 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some oddities in the listing of ships. In the infobox you use the smaller figure for the Spanish, omitting the two ships included in the order of battle table. In the British side of the infobox you say five frigates, seven are included in the order of battle, including at least one that wasn't there. I would not expect to see Dublin, Shrewsbury and Pearl in the order of battle given that they were not present.
 * In some non-naval orders of battle I've included units that were nearby (for appropriate definitions of "nearby") but not involved. However, you are correct that these three ships probably don't need to be listed, so I've removed them.  I've also corrected the infobox figure.  Magic ♪piano 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The ranks of some of the officers are inaccurate. Digby and Ross were rear-admirals at the battle. Rather than including them in the notes section of the table, why not included the flag officers in the commanders section, as with our featured orders of battle like Order of battle at the Glorious First of June? Fixed  Magic ♪piano 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 'The Rock' should be contextualised as a nickname for Gibraltar if it is going to be used. Fixed  Magic ♪piano 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Contextualise the role of this General George Eliott. Fixed  Magic ♪piano 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know what Rodney was ultimately going to do in the West Indies? Clarified  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'broke away', pursuant to Rodney's orders one suspects, but at the moment it sounds like they became lost or escaped. Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The convoy was protected by 'a single ship of the line and several frigates.' But then you say it had only a 'lone warship'? Fixed  Magic ♪piano 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You correctly identify Prince William Henry as being the future William IV. But in the 'aftermath' section the link is to Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh? Fixed  Magic ♪piano 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you say why the remaining ships escaped? Did Rodney call off the pursuit once he saw they were too far away to be caught?
 * None of the accounts I've seen say why some of the ships got away. I suspect a combination of factors might have led Rodney to call off the chase.  Magic ♪piano 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'the admiral receiving a promotion to lieutenant general' - an odd result given his defeat! Was it connected to the battle, as at the moment it reads as if it was. If not, or if it cannot be shown to be, I would include this in with the later sentence i.e. de Langara continued his distinguished career, being promoted to lieutenant general and becoming Spanish marine minister, etc, etc.
 * Indeed it is odd. The reasons for Langara's promotion are unclear, but it had happened by mid February, according to one of Rodney's dispatches.  It seems likely that it was somehow connected to the battle.  I have unfortunately not been able to locate adequate biographical information on Langara (who deserves attention for a variety of reasons), even in Spanish, so I don't know why else it would happen.  Magic ♪piano 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The images of Rodney and de Langara are tiny at the forced pixel size. Having them just defined as 'upright' should be sufficient without shrinking them unnecessarily.
 * Images are better placed by default on the right of the page, especially when doing so would avoid them falling immediately after a section heading (i.e. the Serres painting, and de Langara's portrait.)
 * I find WP guidelines on image placement impossible to consistently satisfy in all of their glory. I've made some adjustments.  Feel free to adjust yourself if you have better ideas on how to place the images. (I think I had downsized to commander portraits when there was less offsetting text; they seem fine to me at normal sizing now.)  Magic ♪piano 22:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The images of Rodney and de Langara are tiny at the forced pixel size. Having them just defined as 'upright' should be sufficient without shrinking them unnecessarily.
 * Images are better placed by default on the right of the page, especially when doing so would avoid them falling immediately after a section heading (i.e. the Serres painting, and de Langara's portrait.)
 * I find WP guidelines on image placement impossible to consistently satisfy in all of their glory. I've made some adjustments.  Feel free to adjust yourself if you have better ideas on how to place the images. (I think I had downsized to commander portraits when there was less offsetting text; they seem fine to me at normal sizing now.)  Magic ♪piano 22:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your detailed feedback. I will try to address issues over the next week, but I am traveling until early November and don't have access to my usual libraries.  Magic ♪piano 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed your issues; please let me know if I haven't.  Magic ♪piano 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I too have been travelling, and only recently returned. The article is looking good, almost everything has been addressed. I've made one comment above on the cite in the lead. A few further minor points:
 * Not necessary for passing GA class, but I wonder if you have any sources as to why battles weren't usually fought at night (there were of course several reasons), which might give a little extra context as to why this battle was unusual?
 * The pictures look fine now, perhaps a little more context on the captions - who painted the portraits, and the dates for the portraits and Serres' painting. Alt text is something that is encouraged, but not necessary for GA class, so I leave that to your discretion.
 * Reword, and link, 'battle line' to 'line of battle', which I think is the more common term.
 * Otherwise, I think this article is more or less there! Benea (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done these things (including moving the cite), except for the alt text (which I'll add later). When I've got better access to sources I'll look at elaborating on the nighttime battle thing.  Magic ♪piano 07:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a few minor things that would very interesting to see clarified or further explained if this were taken to a higher level, but there is nothing to keep this from GA status, so I am happy to pass it as such. Benea (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)