Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Action of 1 January 1800/archive1


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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 03:55, 31 January 2011.

Action of 1 January 1800

 * Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a milhist a-class review, is complete in its scope and i believe it meets all the critera for a Featured article.XavierGreen (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Support Looks like a good article. I have just a few quibbles: --Coemgenus 13:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead's second paragraph, "French aligned" should be hyphenated. Also, the sentence that starts with "Thus..." is a little awkward.
 * I fixed the French aligned and rewrote the sentance in question.XavierGreen (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a few copyedits to the other sections, but a more thorough looking-over couldn't hurt.
 * I found a few spacing issues ive now fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In "Battle," the sentence "Once the Haitians were in musket range of the American vessels they opened fire upon them, which was returned with fire from Experiment" is a bit wordy. Maybe it could end with "...and Experiment returned fire."?
 * I have rewrote the sentance.XavierGreen (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In "Aftermath," the sentence "The action would prove to be controversial back in the United States due to several officers' reports that Lieutenant Maley had shown extreme cowardice during the action" is fairly verbose. I suggest "The action would prove controversial in the United States as several officers' reports suggested that Lieutenant Maley had shown extreme cowardice during the action", but that's certainly not the only way the phrase it.  That whole paragraph has some awkward phrasing and passive voice that you could likely improve.
 * I rewrote the paragraph.XavierGreen (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, looks all good to me. Changed to support.  Good luck!  --Coemgenus 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the correct US flag being used? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the ensign at the time was the 1795 version, which is the one depicted. As a result of your comment though i did notice that i actually had the wrong French flag up there, as the Ensign of France at the time actually is slightly different then the flag i had originally put up there. Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good, though no verification checks possible. One slight nitpick: for consistency, publisher locations should be given in all or no cases, not in some while not others. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the locations from all the references as there are a few i can find no locations for.XavierGreen (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I went through and made some (hopefully uncontroversial) prose tweaks. Two comments:
 * Wikilinking in lead could probably include Bight, Leogane, schooner (all of which I had to look up), but possibly not United States naval (partly because I don't think it's necessary, but it also avoids the confusion of 3 successive wikilinks; alternatively it could be rephrased).
 * jumped into the sea and hid in the hold - change to "or" (I assume they didn't do both)?
 * Other than that, it looks good (although I can't comment on sources or comprehensiveness). Trebor (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the changes you requested and your edits look good to me, thanks for your review!XavierGreen (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support, mostly on prose - an interesting if short article. I'm not yet supporting fully because, while I find few grammatical errors, the prose still seems a bit awkward, particularly in "Background" but more generally throughout the article. Other concerns:
 * Ive tweaked a couple of sentences in the background to make them more clear.XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "within their grasp" - this could be worded more precisely
 * I reworded this to say range of operations.XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that "picaroon" is linked, but it's probably still worth explaining
 * I added a little bit to the sentence to make it more understandable.XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Should provide conversions for things like "135-ton". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do this, but what should i provide conversions to?XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks good, but I haven't been through it thoroughly. A few things at the top.
 * 1) Double-adjective hyphen required: "present-day Haitian island". What is present-day about it? Did the island rise in a volcanic event recently? Was it part of another jurisdiction in 1800? Bit unclear. The double item occurs at least once below, too. What happens if you just remove it?
 * Well Haiti didnt exist in 1800, there was a different polity in the area named Saint-Domingue. Since most people wont know what that is ive rewritten the sentence to help fix the issue.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Caption in infobox pic: did you do the sketch? If not, could you supply just scant details, like the year, etc.?
 * I've added the author and year.XavierGreen (talk)
 * 1) Consider an optional comma before "they still ...". It's quite a long sentence.
 * Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:MOSDASH: 400–500 unspaced.
 * Done.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Only once Rigaud was forced out of power by the forces of Toussaint L'Ouverture did the picaroon attacks cease." The marked theme (grammatically) is effective here, as the final breath of the lead.
 * Id be glad to try and fix this, but i dont know exactly what a marked theme is.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "the new administrators were extremely fractious"—you might consider removing the attitudinal epithet ("extremely"). Does it do much?
 * I removed it.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) amongST is rather old-fashioned nowadays. Like whilST.
 * I dont think its as old fashioned as whilst, i use amongst regularly in writing for everyday use. But im fine with either one so i changed it.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What's the deal with external links to books on the Google books site, which has links to its chosen on-sellers, but no peekies inside the book? Might readers be irritated to learn that this external link doesn't verify, but others go to URLs that contain whole texts? (I've been out of FAC circulation for a while.) Ref 3.
 * They work for me, but ive heard people having problems with google books links in the past. I think whether or not they can be seen by an individual depends on what country they are in and the associated publication rights.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Underuse of commas, in my view. Like "As for armament the Haitian craft were each equipped with ...". This kind of "announced theme", here an adverbial group, is often followed by a comma to avoid the juddering of two noun goups. Normally marked off in speech, too. And previous sentence, "40 to 50 men each in".
 * I fixed the example you pointed out.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "becalmed in the bight"—I googled it. James Cooper wrote this word-string to describe the same scenario. I see also that other authors have used the word-string. How long and distinctive can a word-string be before it is plagiarism? I'm unsure of the answer; it may be ok. Tony   (talk)  13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Like you said many authors have used the term when talking about this battle and also in different situations, for example there are several books that pop up when doing a google search of the term that mention a vessel being becalmed in the bight of benin. Anyone can become becalmed in a bight, all they need is for the wind to stop blowing while they are sailing through one.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Progress report: I'm largely in agreement with my friend Tony. Xavier, I'm applying the same copyediting rules I apply at MILHIST's A-class review, and I'm making the following changes as I go, but of course you can revert for any reason.  Chicago recommends against "amongst" at 5.220 (at "between").  I'm adding a few commas. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "in a piratical manner": what manner is that? - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They basically just took any ship (that wasnt French) they could get their hands on as a prize and slaughtered their crews with impunity. A common definition of picaroon is someone who acts like a pirate. If lawless is better i can change it to that instead.XavierGreen (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "lawlessly". - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "a successful slave rebellion in the French colony of Saint-Domingue": a successful slave rebellion on the French colony, then known as Saint-Domingue,. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "had allowed": allowed. Don't use the past perfect unless you're reaching back to some event before the time of the main narrative. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "twelve six-pounder guns": twelve 6-pounder guns, per WP:ORDINAL. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Changed my mind ... ORDINAL does allow that but we usually go the other way, "12 six-pounder". - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "a merchantmen": a merchantman. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "upon them": on them. Per Chicago 5.220. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Ive never been a big fan of Chicago, the city or the style, and naval literature does use upon quite oftentimes but since they mean the same thing i wont object to the change.XavierGreen (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to do some research some day to back up my subjective impression that, since its release in August or September, Chicago 16 has dominated the competition. I tended to leave stuff like this alone before Chicago 16. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "would strike": struck. Don't use the future-in-past tense if there's a way to make the past tense make sense. - Dank (push to talk)

Support per standard disclaimer. My one remaining question above concerns "in a piratical manner". - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits seem fine to me, thanks for your review!XavierGreen (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Image review? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support
 * The article could use another image for criteria 3 - maybe add an image of David Porter somewhere in the bottom half of the article?
 * I added one.XavierGreen (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Quasi War navigation template refers to this action as Gonaive; this article spells the island Gonâve and doesn't refer to this action by that name. I think you should fix this so the names are consistent.
 * I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better; sea battles between irregular forces are rarely named but considering this was one of the first actions of the US Navy I wondered if in some sources it was named Battle of Gonâve; I'd keep looking (see below).
 * No account of the battle gives it a name, most battles in the Quasi-War are not named or if single ship actions are sometimes referred to as (Insert Ship Name One) vs. (Insert Ship Name Two). The few actions that involved more than two ships do not have names.XavierGreen (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the right name for the article; I just meant its possible it had another name or two. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why you used a casualties 3 in the infobox - seems like it was part of the American casualties.
 * I clarified this more, the casualties 3 box are civilian casualties.XavierGreen (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The US Merchant Marine is currently an auxilliary part the Navy so I would count them as American casualties, unless these ships were from other nations in which case I'd include those flags in the infobox. Civillian casualties sound like a passenger was killed when it was the Captain of the merchant ship I still think this is wrong, 1B.
 * Well one of the wounded was a French passenger so ill leave him in the civilians section and move the killed captain up into the us casualites section.XavierGreen (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Better, thanks. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...American schooner Experiment was escorting under convoy the brig Daniel and Mary and the schooners Sea Flower, Mary, and Washington I think this list should be in the infobox, and the ship names should be redlinked. Alternately, you might consider using the adjective 'armed' to describe Experiment to distinguish it from the unarmed schooners. Kirk (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review!, I believe i have now fixed all four issues you presented .XavierGreen (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * merchantman/men -> merchant ship(s). I think Merchantman/men is archaic; also gives you a better wikilink to use than cargo ship.
 * I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More than one of your google books links include the search term: experiment picaroons
 * Whats wrong with that? How i search for material should be irrelevent to the quality of the article.XavierGreen (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Opppose FA Criteria 1b/c: Bibliography/References - half of the footnotes are from a single source, and there's only 15 which worries that this is not comprehensively researched enough. The sources used aren't inline with what the Navy Historical Center suggests for sources, any Modern Naval History monograph (I like Howarth & Miller), or a reference to DANFS.
 * I have in my possesion or have read most of the authoritive works on the quasi war, an interesting quality of most modern works is that virtually all cite Allen's work in there own texts. Allen's work is of a much higher quality, reliability and detail than most other works on the Quasi War, including many modern works. Why bother citing an inferior source when one can cite the best?XavierGreen (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several ways to handle this. You could pick one or two of the other sources and mention that they consider Allen authoritative on some point (this would probably work better in a note than in the text), or you can mention in the text that "most sources, including Allen, X, Y and Z, state that ..." on some matter of interpretation or weight.  Help the reader to verify that what you say is true, that Allen is authoritative; don't ask them to take it on faith. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A specific problem here is Allen uses a lot of primary sources (or no sources) and with Wikipedia we should aim for using tertiary sources with plenty of footnotes. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive replaced several of the allen citations with citations from Palmer and Williams. While rereading all this i also caught two factual errors which i also have corrected.XavierGreen (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough to address my concerns - very interesting article. Kirk (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One troubling section - Footnote 14, Soley, page 7 In one of these desperate encounters, when his captain gave up the ship as lost, Porter took the command himself, ignoring his superior, and fought the battle to a successful issue.
 * Your text: The action would prove controversial in the United States as several officers' reports suggested that Lieutenant Maley had shown cowardice during the engagement. Lieutenant Porter stated that Maley was insistent on surrendering to the picaroons immediately upon their arrival. It was alleged that Maley thought the situation was hopeless due to the sheer number of forces the pro-French Haitians threw against the convoy. The officers' reports also commended Porter, stating that had he not acted on his own initiative and urged the crew to fight on and ignore Maley's convictions, that Experiment and her whole convoy would have been lost - Soley doesn't really support what you said here because it doesn't tell us which desperate encounter it was - maybe a different biography of Porter has a better account of this action? Kirk (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive added an addition source to back up my text, since this is the only naval battle Maley ever fought there is no doubt as to what Soley is refering to. I also added some text reffering to the fact that not all of the american officals agreed with porter.XavierGreen (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could probably use Allen 146/147 in addition or instead of Soley (its the only citation for that source) but that addresses my concern, thanks. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Still need an image review. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Image review the two images in the article are clearly old enough that they're in the public domain. The captions used are fine, although I'm personally not keen on the photographer/source credits like that. A suggestion for File:David porter senior.jpg, but I'd have it cropped to remove the text at the bottom and insert that text into the image description page. Otherwise, the images and captions meet FA criterion 3.  Imzadi  1979   →  06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I cropped it and added the text to the image description page as requested. I had added the photographer credits per the suggestion of another reviewer above.XavierGreen (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All looks good. It's just my personal preference not to include photo credits like that (since they're on the image description page). Now if they were integrated into the caption say, "A sketch of the action between Experiment and picaroons by William Bainbridge Hoff in 1875" and "A portrait of Commodore David Porter as done by Alonzo Chappell before 1862", then that's fine. Either way, it's a personal preference that does not impede this article's compliance with FA criterion 3.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


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