Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glorious First of June


 * 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 00:03, 15 February 2008.

Glorious First of June


Been working on this article over the last couple of months and feel that the time is right to try my hand at FAC. The article has had a peer review and has been copyedited numerous times to straighten out the prose, so hopefully it will meet FA criteria. The article is 62kb, and has been shortened by the creation of two daughter articles: Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (which is a GA and will hopefully appear here soon) and Order of battle at the Glorious First of June (which is now a featured list). Any and all comments welcomed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also want to thank User:Rama, who did some extremely helpful investigation into contradictory French and British sources and also turned a great many of the red links blue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To reassure the people who have commented, I am not ignoring you but a)I'm not very well right now and consequently my editing time is limited (just a cold, will be gone in a couple of days) and b) User:EyeSerene is conducting a copyedit of the article and I want to wait for him to finish before I go through it thoroughly myself. This will probably be around wednesday night or thursday, and I will incorporate the suggestions below when I do my review. Thankyou veyr much to everyone who has commented or contributed to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear all, feeling much better today and had some time this evening to go over the article carefully with another copyedit and to run through all comments on the talk page and here. I have addressed all those issues remaining; mostly in the article, some here where I didn't quite agree or required more information. I will drop a message on all those who commented, and hopefully the article is now of a standard that people feel merits support. Thankyou very much to all who commented and special thanks to User:Carre and User:EyeSerene for their detailed copyedits and to User:Ruhrfisch for his excellent map.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 Comments Support...
 * Royal Navy section, para 3. "In the spring of 1794, with the convoy's arrival in European waters imminent..." and "Peter Rainier in HMS Suffolk and commanding six other ships was to escort the convoys for the rest of their passage." What convoys are being referred to here? The only mention of convoys up to this point has been the French food convoys. A little confusing.
 * I have added the prefix "French" to the first mention of the convoy, as for the latter, the sentance before the one you mentioned explains what those convoys were: "British convoys to the East Indies, West Indies and Newfoundland". I have added the prefix British for greater clarity.


 * There are too many redlinks throughout.
 * I have been working on this with the help of User:Rama, and between us we have created at least 25 new articles to fill red links here. This is an ongoing process, but I have now exhausted most of my sources and am loath to create very short stubs without context just to fill a red link. If you think this would be adviseable or whether this problem can be addressed simply by delinking the red links, let me know.


 * Last para in French Navy section contains a confusingly long sentence - can it be fragmented? Also - "American Eastern Seaboard"? Why is this capitalised?
 * I assumed eastern seaboard was a proper noun. This has now been changed. I think the sentance is more readble now, let me know what you think.


 * May 1794 section; "The American convoy..." reads like it was a convoy belonging to the Americans. Is that right? The phrase also appears in the section "The convoy arrives".
 * American was used as the convoy was coming from America. I have now changed it to French for greater clarity.


 * First of June section - "Howe unleashed his prepared and unexpected battleplan". "Unexpected" doesn't read right to me - wouldn't "unusual" be a better word?
 * Changed to unusual.


 * The only glaring omission from this article is a map to illustrate the battle - any chance of getting one?
 * This was raised at peer review, but the only map I have been able to find, on or off line is this German one. This map is not only very confusing, but has a number of glaring errors which make me very reluctant to use it (for example, several ships are mislabelled including a French name on a British ship, many of the tracks are wrong, the distance between the first and second French lines is too far and too confusingly rendered etc etc.). I know is a good person to speak to if I can find a reliable map for him to work from, but until I do there is nothing more I can do with this, I wish there was.

Drop me a line when you have fixed/responded to these and I'll take another look. --FactotEm (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for your copyedit and your review here. I hope I have addressed the problems you had with the article above and that it meets your approval. If you have any further comments please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that one or two redlinks necessarily disqualify a FAC, but too many become a problem. I would suggest delinking those that cannot be created.
 * Shame about the map. As an aside, weren't ships around this period often confusingly named? I had to take a few attempts to understand that the Northumberland was actually a French ship, and I believe that there were one or two ships at the Battle of Trafalgar with names that were duplicated on both sides. Anyway, irrelevant. Supporting now - I enjoyed the article, and I hope that it both succeeds this FAC and that, irrespective of the outcome you continue your attempts to get a map for it. --FactotEm (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much. Yes, ship names of the period were immensely confusing because ships which were captured in battle were frequently recommissioned into the Navy which captured them with the same name. When these ships were broken up, their replacements continued the name, hence Northumberland. In addition, the French at this period constantly renamed their ships based on the poltical faction which was then in power. As a result, most of the navy changed names every few months, making deducing what ships were where at a particular time enormously difficult. Sometimes ships would simply switch names with one another and as a result, all British sources list a ship as being present at the action on the 28th May which didn't exist (see footnote about Mont Blanc at the order of battle page). Thankyou again for your attention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - well written and well referenced with nice explanatory notes, relatively few but good illustrations. I agree a map or two would help - I found these two on GoogleBooks, pp. 282-283, here. Would that work? I have a few comments / questions (below) and will make a few copyedits next, but support now.
 * Royal Navy section - This should be painfully obvious, but would it help to add "British" here in the first or second sentence? The first sentence in the next section is In contrast to their British counterparts, the French Navy was in a state of confusion.
 * Done.


 * Convoy section - This conglomeration of ships was said to be over 350 strong, although contemporary historian William James disputes this, citing the number as 117 (in addition to the French warships).[27] Who said there were over 350 ships in the convoy? This claim should be referenced too.
 * The reference for 350 is the same as the 117 - James is commenting on the rumours that the convoy was 350 strong and contradicting it with his own figure. Is it necessary to source this twice?
 * I think the problem is that by giving Williams James' in the second part of the sentence, it makes it less clear about source of the rumors. How about this instead: Although contemporary historian William James notes that this conglomeration of ships was said to be over 350 strong, he disputes this, citing the number as 117 (in addition to the French warships).[27] This is a suggestion and the wording could probably still be made better, but hope it makes my uncertainty with the original clearer. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of June section - Two "however"s in a row: Howe however was counting on the professionalism of his captains and crews combined with the advantage of the weather gage to attack the French directly, driving through their line.[16] He did not however plan to manoeuvre in the manner he had on the two previous encounters;...
 * Done in CE by another user.


 * Van squadron - This sentence seems to be missing a word: Defence was not however the only ship of the van squadron under Admiral Graves to break the French line, HMS Marlborough following her minutes later.[47] perhaps add "with" before HMS Marlborough, or make it "as HMS Marlborough followed her"?
 * Rephrased by other user in CE.


 * Melee - I think it might help here to introduce some ship names with their nationalities (perhaps add HMS or British or Royal Navy In the van, the [HMS] Caesar had finally attempted to join the fight...) Generally, I think only one ship per battle need be identified, and only when the names are not obvious i.e. Ceasar and Trajan. This is done already in the friendly fire incident, and helps clarify it: Queen Charlotte also took fire during the engagement from HMS Gibraltar...
 * This is a little tricky as I don't want to overload the text. I will look at it and see if I can clear it up. All Royal Navy ships should have HMS at start the first time they are mentioned however.


 * French recovery - could the names of the seven French ships sunk or captured be given at the end of this section, with the casualties? This total is mentioned two sections later, but I think specifics on the lost ships belong with the casualties too. :Overall nice work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point here, but I think that mentioning the details of all seven of the ships here, where they have already been discussed in the text and are discussed in aftermath might be excessive. I'll think about it and take opinions from other people on this issue.
 * I struck all my comments - in general I think they reflect someone who has read the article once or twice and is not as clear with information that is there, but could be clearer (is this ship British or French? Which ships sank / were captured? etc.). I trust your judgment here, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou very much for the comments and support. The article is currently undergoing a copyedit from another user. Once he is finished I will review the article again and implement the changes you have suggested. Thanks again.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not do any copyedits since another user was making them. I just added a map I made showing the general location of the battle based on the source I gave above. Let me know if it needs any corrections - the maps of all the ships in the source are (sadly) too much for me to make free versions of. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That map seems great, I have moved it slightly but otherwise it is fine. The ships map on the source you linked to is problematic. Basically for some reason it has been drawn upside down and few ships are labelled, making it probably more confusing than explanatory. For the moment I think the article will have to do without a tactical map until a clearer one emerges. Thankyou for your work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The maps label the Royal Navy ships with numbers and French ships with letters - the key is on the next page. If for some reason it is not available, I can send you the info for whoever could make a map based on it. I did not know why North was down instead of up either. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, I missed that (sorry). Bizarrely and frustratingly however, the French order of battle here is not the same as the one I gathered from other sources for the Order of Battle article above. Crap. The French ships at this battle (and therefore their order) have never been satisfactorily idenntified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem and glad my map is OK. I have a question - could Map I in the book above still be used as a basis for a similar map here, showing the two lines of ships at the start of battle, but following the sources you used for the list for the names of the French ships? Also is Map II (the melee) accurate enough to serve as the basis for a melee map? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Provided the map is turned so north is up, I don't see any reason why the lines of battle map is inappropriate. I think that the melee map, whilst possibly accurate (allowing for the possible mislabelling of ships) is probably too confusing to be of much help to the reader. The complexity of this battle means that after the British broke the French line the article would need five or six maps to demonstrate the action at any one time, if we try to show action over even a short period of time, the interweaving ship tracks will become hopelessly entangled.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have run through your comments and made some revisions to the article and some counter-comments above. Thankyou very much for your interest in the article and for the brillant maps you provided. They were extremely appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - this is an excellent article; very well-written and engaging. I only found a few issues, but none of them are deal breakers.  Otherwise, full support. Support, everything addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The British Channel Fleet under Lord Howe attempted to interdict the passage of a vitally important..." The words "vitally" and "important" seem redundant.
 * Dealt with in CE.


 * Suggest wikilinking some unfamiliar terms such as "promontory". Except I'm not sure Ushant is a promontory.  Maybe it doesn't matter.  Later, you write about the ships "wearing" but I don't believe that is a familiar term to most readers.  Link to jibe on first mention.
 * Linked & corrected.


 * Check hyphen use where there should be em dashes.
 * I think this is sorted now, but I get very confused when dealing with the hyphen issue.


 * "Gathering sufficient manpower proved problematic, and was never satisfactorily accomplished throughout the entire 23 years of war." What 23 years of war?  Please explain in the text.
 * Shortened.


 * What is the proper way to refer to Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse? In the lead you call him "Joyeuse", later you call him "Villaret", and you also call him "de Joyeuse".
 * The correct usage is Villaret. Villaret de Joyeuse is actually the full surname of Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse. All the sources avaliable refer to him as Villaret after the first mention.


 * "...many of the ships which did obey Howe's order and attacked the French directly arrived in action without significant damage." This is an awkward phrase that mixes verb tenses (did obey and attacked).
 * Dealt with in CE.


 * There are a few places where "which" is used and where "that" is proper. The above is actually one example.  However, I'm aware that the matter is subjective and British use might be different from the American English I am accustomed to. --Laser brain (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think these have been dealt with during CE.
 * Thankyou very much for your comments. As noted above, the article is undergoing a copyedit from another editor. Once he is finished I will review it again myself and implement your suggestions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have thoroughly reviewed the article today and hopefully dealt with all issues to your satisfaction.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I found this a very interesting and well-written article on the whole, and I appreciate Jackyd101's work despite his illness. Karanacs (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ' Comments'. I found this a very interesting and well-written article on the whole.  However, there are a few places that I feel need citations, and a few phrases that I didn't understand.
 * Per WP:MOSDASH, unspaced mdashes should be used instead of spaced ndashes (or hyphens) when you are adding parenthetical information. In some cases, you should also consider using commas to offset a clause instead of dashes.
 * WP:MOSDASH says that spaced ndashes can be used instead of unspaced mdashes, as long as it's used consistently. Epbr123 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this has been sorted now, although I get easilyconfused when dealing with hyphens.


 * Need a citation for "largest French ships were three-decker first rates, carrying 110 or even 120 guns, compared with 100 guns on the largest British vessels"
 * Sourced.


 * Need a citation for "the only remaining problem was that of manning the several hundred ships on the Navy list."
 * Sourced.


 * Need a nonbreaking space between a numberal and its unit/qualifiers (for example, 23 years, 26 battleships)
 * Will get on this ASAP.
 * I think this is done but I might have missed some. Let me know if you spot any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I got the ones you missed. Karanacs (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hundreds more were imprisoned, banished or dismissed from naval service" -> hundreds more officers or hundreds more sailors?
 * Both, I'm not sure how to make this clearer without causing problems with the prose here. Any ideas?
 * How about "hundreds more officers and sailors"? (If you don't like that, you can revert my changes.) Karanacs (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what this means: "This first rate was at various times engaged "; I've always heard first-rate as an adjective, but not sure its meaning here.
 * I have linked first rate, it was already linked further up the page, but I have linked it again to avoid confusion.


 * What does this mean? "each ship wearing in turn"
 * Now linked to jibe.


 * <s.Need a citation for "but overall British casualties are generally given as around 1,200."
 * Sourced.

Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks well-written, but ...
 * "No such excuses exist defending Captain Anthony Molloy of Caesar"—not both excuses and defending. The exist is clumsy too.
 * Changed to "There were no such excuses, however, for Captain Anthony Molloy of Caesar," – that better Tony? Carre (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Much better. Tony   (talk)  09:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The map caption should not have a final period. I find the tiny print in some of the captions hard to read; is it necessary to reduce the font size further?
 * Full-stop gone. Not done the font shrinkage, will leave that up to Jacky. Carre (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiny font is no more.


 * I see that the author(s) get a charge out of referring to both ships and countries as women. It's not only sexist—it's often laboured: "As she did so, she also became briefly entangled with the next in line, Jacobin, and exchanged fire with her too,..".
 * I know there is a guideline which recommends that ships be referred to as "she" buecause I read it on an unrelated matter af ew days a ago but now of course I cannot find it anywhere. I have dealt with the instance above, and hopefully squished any other problematic examples in copyedit. If there are further problems please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "other ships of the centre division also struck the French line"—"Also" is redundant in the light of "other". Tony   (talk)  12:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "also" gone. Those examples sorted, but I think the copy-edit is still on-going. Carre (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Epbr123 (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with disclaimer: Jacky asked me to look at the prose, and I gave it a bash, but quickly decided that I wasn't any good at copy-editing. Carré (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.