Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Groix/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2017.

Battle of Groix

 * Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

An article about a largely-forgotten naval battle of the early French Revolutionary Wars. By earlier standards it was a significant victory for the Royal Navy, but by the standards of the war to come it rather paled in comparison.

I have 12 FAs to my name, but none since April 2010. I wrote this in 2012 and moved on to other things, with a full break in 2015. I am now returning to Wikipedia after two years hiatus and felt this might be a good place to start. I've revised and copyedited it and I think it is ready. I can't see any major changes to the criteria in the last 7 years, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Many thanks in advance.Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jackyd, welcome back -- as it's been a long time between drinks for you, we might get a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing, on top of the regular image licensing check and source review for reliability/formatting, but apart from that I don't think there'd be too many surprises... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian, I'm in the hands of you fine people - let me know what needs fixing!--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Bridports_Action_Groix.jpg: source link is dead and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done and found another cool image to use in the process. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps and source review

 * There is currently a mixture of British and American spellings. What English variation is being used here? --Ykraps (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be British - I've scanned for American spellings and can't see any but it might be a function of my spell-checker, which is unapologetically American despite my best efforts. Can you let me know where they are? I also reverted a couple of changes you made, one was an alteration to odd capitalisation in a direct quote and the other was to return to the French military rank "Vice-amiral". Also, court-martialed only has one "l". Thank you very much for the copyedit.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it was User:Finetooth who changed amiral to admiral but guilty as charged over the others. I wondered at the time if the caps were part of the direct quote, hence the question mark in my edit summary. With regards to court-martialled/martialed, both dictionaries I own and  give the spelling as martialled. This is consistent with words like dialled and initialled. Collins also states that martialed is the US spelling. Totaled (Aftermath, 2nd paragraph) should also have two 'L's. Compass points (south-east etc) are generally hyphenated in British English and never all one word. This is mentioned in the manual of style here:[]. 'Maximize' is more commonly 'maximise' in modern British English but both spellings are still acceptable so I'll leave that one up to you. 'Maneuvered' should be 'manouevred' in the translation from the French quote in the last paragraph.--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ever of you made the edits, thanks to both for the copyedit. I've checked several versions of "court-martialled" and there is no consistency, so I've gone with yours. Made all other changes. Thank you very much for these notes, much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any consistency with "mizzen" either. I always thought it was two zeds but I was looking at a book by Sam Willis this morning where it's spelt with one. I have hyphenated the compass points but if you think I'm wrong you can of course revert.--Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , used to reference the first sentence in the second paragraph of the 'Battle' section, should be labelled as Volume I. Also can you check the page number? Unless you have a wildly different version, I think you'll find it's 418. --Ykraps (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My copy of this (from 1905), is a single volume and the page reference appears to be correct.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I thought it might correspond with this version [] and as the digits were identical I thought it was a typo. Obviously not!--Ykraps (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the text on page 59 of James' The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume 1 supports the statement, "...followed by a purge of suspected anti-republicans which resulted in the death or imprisonment of a number of experienced commanders". Do you have another source? --Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good spot. James references the mutiny, but not the ensuing repression. I've added a new source. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences in the second paragraph of the "Background" section are referenced to page 256 of Clowes but the supporting text to the first sentence appears on page 255. I would suggest either citing those sentences "pp.255-256" or adding a separate citation to the first sentence. --Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Same with the rest of that paragraph, James p.238 cited but ought to be pp.237-238. --Ykraps (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Background" section, 6th sentence of 3rd paragraph - Cornwallis had ordered the frigate HMS Phaeton to range ahead of his squadron making false signals announcing the imminent arrival of a British fleet. These concerned Villaret so much that at 18:40 he called off pursuit and returned to the French coast... James, to which this part is referenced, says on p.242, "At 6 p.m., as a singular coincidence, there actually appeared, in the direction to which the Phaëton's signals had been pointing, several small sail. The British frigate immediately wore to rejoin her squadron ; and very soon afterwards, as has already been stated, Vice-admiral Villaret, to whom the strange sails must just then have discovered themselves, gave over the chase and tacked to the eastward...", indicating that it was a combination of these two events that caused Villaret to withdraw. Can the sentence be rewritten to reflect this? "This ruse de guerre coupled with the arrival of several sail on the horizon at 18:00, concerned Villaret so much that he called off the pursuit...", or similar? --Ykraps (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done all of these - are you intending to go though every reference like this? If so thank you, but wow that's quite a job. Let me know if you find anything else.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only intending to look a sample but because I have an interest in this type of article, I often find myself doing some extra reading. Fortunately/unfortunately I have the books you have used for sourcing the article. If it's any comfort, given what I've seen so far, I'm not expecting to unearth anything major.--Ykraps (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Villaret's retreat, first paragraph: "It was one of Warren's ships, the frigate HMS Arethusa, that first discovered the French as Villaret led his fleet out from the sheltered anchorage. Lookouts on Arethusa miscounted the French fleet however, identifying 16 ships of the line and ten frigates; Warren immediately sent word to Bridport while ordering his convoy to turn away from the French" is referenced to Clowes p.260 but Clowes makes no mention of 'Arethusa' nor "16 ships of the line and ten frigates". This might be better referenced by James p.244 which does have this information .--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "The adverse southeasterly winds delayed both fleets..." I wonder if delayed is the right word here. To me, a delay is when something is expected to arrive somewhere at a particular time and doesn't. The source gives no indication that the fleets were expected any earlier. Perhaps 'hindered' or 'hampered' might be better? Unless of course they were expected earlier. --Ykraps (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, not 'hampered', I can see you have used that a little later on. 'Frustrated'?,'impeded'? --Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "To maximise his chances of catching the French, Bridport specifically ordered his fastest ships HMS Sans Pareil, HMS Orion, HMS Colossus, HMS Irresistible, HMS Valiant and HMS Russell..." Not sure we can say they were the fastest, even if they were; Brenton p.231, doesn't mention that as a reason. --Ykraps (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * However, Clowes p.261, says "...his best sailing ships", so add that as an additional reference and we're good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "To ensure that his fleet was in a position to intercept..." Brenton doesn't mention the signals given at 19:00 and 19:25, so again an additional source is needed here, such as James p.245. --Ykraps (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "...The main body of the French fleet was sailing in a loose cluster with three or four ships trailing behind and one ship, Alexandre under Captain François Charles Guillemet far to the rear and only 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) from the British vanguard". Guillemet is mentioned on p.246 of James, so strictly speaking, the citation here is pp.245-246. --Ykraps (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Battle, second paragraph: "As the French crew scrambled to extinguish it, Sans Pareil, flagship of Rear-Admiral Lord Hugh Seymour, reached the ship and fired a broadside in passing..." The engagement between Sans Pareil and Formidable is described on p.246 of James with the casualties on p.248. So again, shouldn't this be pp.246-248? --Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Battle, third paragraph: "The entire combat was slowly pulling closer to the fortified rocky island of Groix..." Needs pp.262-263 of Clowes .--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Battle, last paragraph: "...which Bridport was not aware had already surrendered", might be better referenced by James pp.246-247 as Clowes doesn't really make it clear that Tigre had previously surrendered and had to strike a second time to Royal George. --Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Aftermath, first paragraph: "Bridport had remained off Quiberon to ensure that Villaret did not return to harass the expeditionary force, returning to Britain on 20 September but leaving the bulk of the blockade fleet off the Breton coast under Rear-Admiral Henry Harvey. The 68-year-old Bridport was forcibly retired in October after an unrelated argument with First Lord of the Admiralty Earl Spencer, but was reinstated in 1796 and continued to serve in command of the Channel Fleet until 1800". The ONDB source only confirms the last sentence. Clowes p.267 can be used for the first bit. --Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Aftermath, second paragraph: "Villaret meanwhile gathered his scattered ships and called a council of his senior officers on Peuple to discuss their next course of action". This sentence is referenced to James p.249 but James says the council was held "...on board the Proserpine frigate, in which his flag was flying" .--Ykraps (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the sentence, "In common with the battle of the Glorious First of June the previous year, rewards for the British victory at Groix were unevenly distributed" (Aftermath, third paragraph). I can see why you've said that but without a source to verify it, it looks a bit WP:SYNTH. --Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also in third paragraph of 'Aftermath' section, "The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball", needs a source., will do nicely here. --Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not absolutely necessary but I just wonder if some sort of footnote listing the ships might be helpful. There are so many with similar names; Prince George, Royal George, Prince of Wales, Prince, that one could be forgiven for thinking they were one and the same.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this - let me know when you are finished and I'll address them all in one go.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think I’m just about done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done all of these except the footnore - there is an Order of battle in the Biscay campaign of June 1795 linked in the infobox and in a hatnote which should help people to differentiate between the ships. Thanks for your comprehensive review. Quite a few of these were cases where the text in question was originally referenced further down the paragraph and then a new reference was inserted between the text and its reference.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - There are just three other points which appear to have been overlooked: The claim that Sans Pareil, Orion, Colossus, Irresistible, Valiant and Russell were Bridport's fastest ships isn't supported by the source; the meeting on Peuple occurred on Proserpine (This one?) according to the source, and the claim I suggested could be seen as synthesis.--Ykraps (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry. Changed fastest to best-sailing and gave source you suggested; added the frigate, good catch on the error (it was this one actually) and I added a source about the concern regarding the 1st of June, which should keep us in line with the facts.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as the comparison between the two events is sourced that's fine and if you don't think the footnote is necessary then that's fine too.--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

All my points have been satisfactorily addressed and I am happy that the sourcing meets FA standards: Reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked a good proportion for accuracy and close paraphrasing. Examples below -
 * Article: Throughout the day the French vanguard kept up a distant but continual fire on the rearmost British ship HMS Mars, until eventually the ship began to fall behind the others. In an effort to protect Mars, Cornwallis interposed his 100-gun flagship HMS Royal Sovereign between the British squadron and the French force, its massive broadsides driving the French back


 * Source:(Clowes pp.257-258)…at length, the Mars, considerably damaged aloft, began to fall to leeward. Observing this, Cornwallis signalled her to alter course ... …and then, in the Royal Sovereign, the Vice-admiral himself bore round towards her, followed by Triumph, and delivered raking broadsides… This manoeuvre saved the Mars… Four French van ships, which had bore up hoping to secure the Mars, considered it wise to haul to wind.


 * Article: At 06:15, Queen Charlotte passed Alexandre and began firing on Formidable, Linois returning fire against his much larger enemy for fifteen minutes before a fire broke out on the poop deck.


 * Source:(Allen p.184) At about 6h. 15m. the Charlotte fired her starboard broadside into Formidable, Captain Linois, and a close action commenced.....at about this time, [0630] the French ship [Formidable] caught fire on the poop.


 * Article: Bridport gave instructions as he withdrew for Alexandre, Formidable and Tigre to be taken under tow by HMS Prince, HMS Barfleur and HMS Prince George respectively.


 * Source:(Clowes p.263) The Admiral ordered Prince, Barfleur and Prince George to take the prizes in tow; and the fleet stood away with them to the S.W.


 * Article: Following their advice, Villaret decided to shelter the fleet in the nearby port of Lorient to seek supplies and repairs before returning to Brest. He found however that, having sailed without sufficient provisions, Lorient was not equipped for a fleet of such size and Villaret was forced to discharge the majority of sailors as he was unable to feed them. It was not until December and the winter storm season that a number of the ships were able to travel quietly up the coast to Brest, while others were sent southwards to Rochefort.


 * Source:(James p.253) The ships in the latter port [Lorient] ; having, as stated before, quitted Brest with only 15 days' provisions on board, had been compelled, owing to the poverty of the place, to discharge the principal part of their crews ; disease and desertion had gradually thinned the remainder.


 * Article: All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball. Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle.


 * Source:(James p.250) Of his three prizes, the Alexandre, or Alexander, as now again entitled to be called, was scarcely worth anything ; but the Tigre and Formidable were fine new 74s, similar in size to the Impetueux and America captured by Earl Howe. The Tigre was allowed to retain her name ; but there being a Formidable 98 already in the service, the name of the Formidable 74, as if to perpetuate an acknowledged discreditable mistake, was changed to that of the island, close to which, instead of to Groix, the action was supposed to have been fought ...


 * Article: Twenty-first-century historians Noel Mostert and Richard Woodman have compared Groix with the battles of Genoa and Hyères fought earlier in the year in the Mediterranean, where in similar circumstances another elderly admiral, William Hotham, had also allowed scattered and retreating French fleets to escape when they might have been destroyed.


 * Source:(Woodman p.61) Two similarly unsatisfactory actions between British and French squadrons were fought in the Mediterranean, where Vice-admiral William Hotham had relieved Lord Hood. Off Genoa in March Hotham took a French 80 and a 74, and in an action of Hyeres in July...


 * Source:(Mostert p.164) The French had lost their opportunity off Fiorenzo, the British off Hyeres, where a superior fleet of twenty-three British ships had failed to come to action with a French fleet of seventeen... ...For the British the consequences of Hotham's failure were soon to become apparent. There was nothing better on offer from the Channel Fleet at the Western Approaches. On 22 June, an unusually powerful Channel Fleet... ...Bridport's explanation echoed Hotham's off Hyeres...

Support--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

 * This is a well-written account of an interesting sea battle. Here are my questions and suggestions. I think a map would be especially helpful.


 * General
 * Images need alt text.
 * I used to have to do this and was wondering if it was still necessary, couldn't see anything about it on the FA criteria page. In any case, done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if not required, it's a nice thing to do for readers who can't see the images. Finetooth (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Link aquatint in the lede image caption?
 * done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * View of the Close of the Action Between the British and French Fleets, off Port L'Orient on 23 June 1795; aquatint by Robert Dodd, from the original by Captain Alexander Becher, RN; published 12 June 1812, NMM – I would omit the publication date and the name of the publisher since those details are readily available on the image description page.
 * Date reduced, but I think it is important to have the date for context - whether the image is contemporary or not is crucial to its value as an illustration. The Maritime Museum is the owner of the image (i.e. its an image of a print from their collection), not the publisher. I always put the owner of the image in a caption when I use one - its both professional and polite.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An exact Representation of the Capture of three Ships of the Line, and total defeat of the French Fleet, by a Squadron under Command of Admiral Lord Bridport, on the 23 of June, 1795" E. Godefroy & J. Pass, 1795. NMM.]] – For a more clean image, I would consider cropping the text from the image itself and re-uploading the cropped image to the Commons, and I would eliminate the publisher's name and the publication date from the caption.
 * See above. Also, I think that the text is an important part of the image in this instance. The print is a composition as a whole, not a simple picture.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Finetooth (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A map showing Brittany, Lorient, Brest, Groix, and Belle Île would be helpful in understanding the ship movements. It could be a map of any time since 1795, not necessarily an old map, as long as it showed the relevant coastline, cities, and islands.
 * Haven't found an appropriate one yet. Still looking.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't found one either. This one would do as an appropriately licensed base map to which a few names and a couple of city locations could be added. I don't want to hold things up, so I'm striking. It's something you might consider adding later. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * ¶2 "Several of his ships were too slow however," – I don't think you need the "however".


 * Background
 * ¶1 Link "anti-republicans" to something explanatory, perhaps Republicanism?
 * I've linked the purge to the Reign of Terror, of which it was a small part, but a link to Republicanism isn't going to be helpful. The people executed were political prisoners from a range of ideological stances from monarchism through a bewildering rainbow of republican factions; most were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were actually executed on trumped up charges anyway (e.g. sailors executed for protesting a lack of edible food or dock administrators executed for failing to meet impossible work quotas), so the link might actually be misleading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶1 "the French fleet sallied out into the Atlantic" – Delete "out"?
 * I don't think its a tautology, but sure, OK. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶1 "The febrile atmosphere..." – "Fevered" would be more familiar to most readers, I think.
 * I quite like the word febrile and I don't think fevered really matches the tone of what was happening - I've compromised with "tense".--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶2 "French commander Vice-admiral Villaret..." − Elsewhere in ¶2, you have "Vice-Admiral William Cornwallis". I'm not sure whether little "a" or big "A" is preferred. Should they be the same, or is the difference important?
 * Its actually an important difference - the French ranks of vice and contre-amiral are not exact equivalents of Vice and Rear-Admiral in the Royal Navy, and in the context of this article are proper nouns and should I think be rendered in the original French (note that I refer to contre-amiral, but anglicise it to French admiral when I'm not using it as a proper noun, as they were still collectively admirals). THis is also consistent with my many other articles in this field.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. That makes sense. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶2 Link Contre-amiral since even "counter-admiral" may be unfamiliar to most readers?
 * ¶3 "heading out into open water " – Delete "out"?
 * ¶3 "the ship began to fall behind the others." – Delete "the others" as unnecessary?
 * Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Battle of Groix
 * The Manual of Style advises against repeating the article title in a head. Instead of Battle of Groix here, would Engagement be better? Or something else?
 * That's a new one on me and I'm not sure why its a problem, but sure, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm. Redundancy is the problem. MOS:HEAD contains the guideline I'm thinking of. It says, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life) or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." In your revision, the word "battle", which is one of the main words of the article title, appears in the subhead "Battle off Groix" and in the sub-subhead, "Battle". Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made changes as you suggest, but honestly, having read that guideline, I still don't see how having redundancy between the title and section headings is a problem for readers in any way. Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Villaret's retreat
 * ¶3 "The ship was a poor sailer, whose position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet... " – Since a ship isn't a who, maybe "The ship was a poor sailer, and its position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet..."
 * Most sailors would I think disagree with your first statement, but changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The same guys who like to think of a ship as a she? Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Battle
 * ¶3 "had been forced out of the engagement due to severe damage to his rigging and sails" – Use "its rigging" here instead of "his" since the damage was to the equipment, not Douglas?
 * I would humbly suggest that this is okay. It is his ship so by extension, his sails and rigging. --Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ykraps; there is a standing convention in a lot of naval histories to conflate the captain with the ship in this way - i.e. as captain authority over the ship's equipment rested entirely with him and thus they were in a very real sense "his". Have no objection to changing it to "the rigging" though if you'd prefer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No change necessary. Most of my suggestions are minor, and I'm an outsider who is mostly unfamiliar with sailing conventions. Finetooth (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶3 "At 07:14, he drifted past that shattered hull of Alexandre, Captain Guillemet, opening fire briefly before surrendering as the first rate returned it with devastating effect." – Something's amiss here. Remove the comma after Guillemet?
 * Yep, bad comma. Changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * ¶1 "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded, with Queen Charlotte and Colossus with the heaviest casualties of 36 and 35 respectively." – I'd suggest replacing the double "with" in this sentence. Maybe "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded; Queen Charlotte and Colossus had the heaviest casualties, 36 and 35 respectively."
 * Good call.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶2 "opposed by Rear-Admirals Kerguelen and Étienne Eustache Bruix" – Since you used "amiral" and "contre-amiral" earlier, should "Rear-admiral" be given in a French equivalent, if there is one?
 * Yes, this was an error, good spot.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶3 "by the Parliament of Great Britain, who voted thanks" – Should Parliament be a "which" rather than a "who"?
 * ¶3 "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy, Alexandre reverting to Alexander (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball), Tigre retaining her French name while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle." – Too complex. Maybe "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. Alexandre reverted to Alexander. (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball.) Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle."
 * Rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶4 "in the opinion of French admiral Kerguelen" – Admiral or amiral? To maintain consistency, it might be better to use all-English titles throughout rather than using the French equivalents.
 * See above about proper nouns (French) and common nouns (English).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Bibliography
 * To deal with questions like one that Ykraps raised above, it would probably be helpful to include OCLCs for the books without ISBNs. WorldCat lists them. Your edition of Battles of the British Navy, for example, is probably the 9th edition or the revised 9th edition of the Simpkin publication: here. You might also add the full title and the edition info to identify the source more exactly.
 * Added edition. Not certain which is the OCLC number on the link you sent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's kind of a thicket of stuff to wade through. The trick is to click from the title on the page I sent you, and that takes you to another page specifically about the 1905 9th rev. ed. from which you scroll down to the "Details" section. The OCLC, 85994488, is cleverly hidden there. I added this OCLC to the article. You should be able to add OCLCs to any of the others. Here, for example, is the OCLC list of possibles for Chasseriau. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the finely detailed review. Comments above, otherwise I think I've done everything you've suggested. Let me know if you have additional comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done except for the two remaining open questions about the head-subhead redundancy and the other missing OCLCs. Leaning toward support. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done these both. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. By the way, I found a map that would work, but needs a red dot on it for clarity. I can't work out the formatting for putting red dots in images not in the infobox though. Can you recommend anything?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you provide a link to the map, I'll take a look and see what might be done. You'll need to tell me where you want the red dot to appear. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The map is below. The dot should go off the southern side of the island of Groix, halfway up the southern coast of the Breton peninsula. Any help much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the map itself from this FAC page because I thought it might slow the page loading. Working on a solution. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Modified the base map, uploaded it to the Commons, and installed it in the article. If you want further alterations, just let me know on the article's talk page or my talk page rather than extending the map discussion here at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: really nice work. I just have a few minor formatting suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * in the lead, Lorient is overlinked
 * in the body, the following terms are overlinked: Lorient, Brittany
 * per the example at Template:Infobox military conflict, I don't think we usually include ranks in infoboxes
 * there is some inconsistency in how you display page ranges. For instance, compare "James, p. 245-246" with "James, pp. 237-238" (I think the later is correct)
 * the page ranges should probably have endashes instead of hyphens
 * Citation 45, Winfield should probably be a short citation for consistency of style


 * Thank you and done! Much appreciated--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments.
 * What the British admiral did not know however "However" is frowned upon at FAC and this one looks like it could go without any loss of meaning (also when it's used in the middle of a sentence like that, it should be flanked by commas as a subordinate clause)
 * Removed.


 * a week earlier, but that they were still at sea, Villaret's ships having been blown Suggest changing the second comma to a dash so that "but that they were..." doesn't look like a subordinate clause
 * Done.


 * Captain Richard Grindall in Irresistible,  Captain Sir James Saumarez in Orion, etc: Surely one travels on a ship, not in it?
 * As far as I'm aware either is fine - you are literally inside the ship most of the time, so . ..


 * but none executed the manoeuvre Why not? Was there not time or was there confusion in the heat of battle? As written, it could be read that the French captains deliberately disobeyed orders.
 * That is deliberate - the sources frame it the same way, implying that the captains disobeyed orders but not saying it explicitly. Note that later in the article there is an explicit criticism from Villaret for his captains' conduct.


 * Douglas falling in behind his ship in anticipation of a renewed attack, his crew having conducted two uses of his referring to different people in very quick succession; suggest splitting the sentence into two
 * Both "his" refer to Douglas here, but since its clearly not clear I have reworded it.


 * At 08:15 however see my previous comment on "however", and that sentence is long and difficult to follow with the amount of information in it
 * Done


 * Recommend using Template:Cite ODNB for your ODNB citations.
 * Done


 * Was there any broader impact on the French Revolutionary Wars or anything else that could just wrap up the end of the article?
 * Not on the wider war itself, which was mainly fought on land - the most important strategic impact was that the British dominance of the Atlantic was unchallenged for the next year or so as discussed in the aftermath section.


 * No see also? It's by no means compulsory but sometimes it can be helpful.
 * Can't think of anything which could go there.

— HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  02:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think I've addressed these, let me know if there is anything further. Thanks also for the copyedit. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I'm happy with your replies, so support. Nice work, and I hope to see more! HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.