Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Levant (1758)/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) 21:57, 3 April 2017.

HMS Levant (1758)

 * Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

An eighteenth century Royal Navy frigate with a solid record as a hunter of French, Spanish and American privateers. Launched in 1758 and in service during both the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, defeating a total of 24 enemy vessels. This article passed GA and MILHIST A-class review last year, and received an FAC mentor review from a few weeks ago. After extensive recent tweaking I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. However it's been 7$1⁄2$ years since my last FAC, so I apologise in advance for any obvious errors. Comments, suggestions or criticisms welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Image review Comments by 
 * Thanks
 * captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Thanks, done.
 * File:USS_Revenge_(1777).jpg: I'm not seeing any evidence that Benson was a Navy employee? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. Will restore if verified or replace if possible, but it's largely decorative so am also happy to leave it out.
 * Question: since John Prentiss Benson died in 1947, shouldn't the painting enter the public domain sometime this year? Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think he died in November 1947; absent any other PD reason I'll add this image back in then.

Just started looking at the sources. Shouldn't the citation for first sentence in the construction section (Levant was an oak-built 28-gun sixth-rate, one of 18 vessels...) be pp.227-231? The oak reference appears on p.229 and the other pages are needed to confirm there were 18 ships. I can't see where Dull indicates, "Despite the Treaty, Spain delayed the issue of a formal declaration of war" (pp.102-103)
 * Done. Also added a ref to the table in Gardiner 1992, which handily lists all 18 on the same page.
 * Yeah, Dull kind of talks around it by flagging the date of the treaty but not the date of the declaration. I've added a better reference (Hunt 1905), which reads in part: After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12 ... She did not declare war until June 16 in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action." For verification there's an online version of Hunt here - search function doesn't seem to work but the reference is near the top of page 196.

Not really an issue, just wondering why the table for captures during the Seven Years' War gives the day and the table for captures during the American Revolutionary War, doesn't. --Ykraps (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest this [] but I think yours is better.--Ykraps (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Have started to add them in, for consistency if nothing else. Will finish this up shortly.

The sentence "Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1794, and died in 1796" has been referenced using the ODNB but the version I'm looking at [] says he suffered two strokes in 1796 but didn't die until 17 October 1797 (at the home of his nephew). Can you check your source again? --Ykraps (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't access odnb from where I am at present, but I checked the University of Michigan ref used elsewhere in the article and it confirms the 1797 death date (also made admiral in 1795, not 1794), as you indicate. Have fixed the date and added UMich as a reference - sorry, I would have used your odnb reference link instead but I cannot open it.
 * I didn't mention the promotion because ODNB says he was promoted to rear admiral in 1794 and vice admiral in 1795, so I thought, "promoted to admiral in 1794" was okay. If you want to use it, the citation is - . I think you need a subscription or a UK library card to access so that's probably why the link didn't work. Or use the sources you have. Whatever you think best.--Ykraps (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done - I re-added the ODNB ref per the above, for the date of appointment as rear-admiral in 1794, and also kept UMich as a slightly more accessible source for date of death in 1797.

Source review - Sources appear reliable and of suitable quality. I have checked all those available to me for accuracy and copyright violation. Where I have been unable to access the source, I have tried to corroborate using my own (with varying degrees of success). With references I couldn't check I've AGF, having been satisfied with everything else I have seen. Some examples below:

Text in article: ''Captain Murray's orders were to join a Mediterranean squadron under the overall command of Captain Robert Mann, which was tasked with intercepting merchant vessels suspected of supplying American rebels. While at sea, Murray also took the opportunity to train his crew in seamanship and battle techniques, in preparation for future enemy engagement.''

Text in source: ''... the ship travelled as part of the Mediterranean fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Robert Mann...Early entries of the log book contain some description of pursuing and halting ships from England and America (one from Pennsylvania and one from Maryland). Other ships encountered by the Levant hailed from Amsterdam, Genoa, Martinique, Cádiz, Jamaica, and Antigua. The author also described exercising the ship's guns and practicing tactical fleet formations (forming a line of battle abreast, a line of battle ahead, and the bow and quarter).'' Text in article: In March 1776 she anchored in the Bay of Algiers where the Dey received her warmly and provided the crew with supplies including bread, vegetables, and three live sheep.

Text in source: ''The crew of the Levant also encountered the Dey of Algiers who "sent onboard as a Present 3 live Bullocks of sheep with bread & Vegetables to the ship comp'y." (March 7, 1776)''

Text in article: Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1795, and died in 1797.

Text in source: ''He later served as captain of the Levant from 1774-1779. In 1780, he was appointed to the frigate Cleopatra……He obtained a promotion to Vice Admiral in 1795……He died on October 17, 1797.''

Text in article: ''On 12 April 1779 Spain signed the Treaty of Aranjuez with France, setting terms for a joint military alliance against Britain. Despite the Treaty Spain delayed the formal declaration of war until June, to give time for better co-ordination of its battle fleet.''

Text in sources: .....by the 12 April 1779 Convention of Aranjuez, Spain and France became allies. (Dull) ''After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting powers should invade England ; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of the English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action.'' (Hunt) Text in article: Levant was returned to Portsmouth in early 1775, but put to sea again on 22 June amid the early stages of the American Revolutionary War. Text in source: ''Ord: 6.5.1757. K: 6.1757. L: 6.7.1758. C: 17.7.1758-16.6.1759 at Portsmouth............In 1774 under Capt. George Murray; home in 1775, then returned to the Mediterranean 22.6.1775.......''

Earwig's Copvio tool returns 36.7% violation unlikely [] The inclusion of this quote increases the count considerably [] --Ykraps (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the source review, apologies that so many sources are offline, though I find the British Newspaper Archive is well worth the subscription. I do quite like the Gower quote at the end, as the only first-hand perspective on the vessel's career. But if you think it too long please let me know and I will either shorten or remove. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In passing, have removed the quotebox from the final section.


 * Support - Nicely detailed and well written article. Just to say, I didn't have a problem with the quote, merely pointing out how it affected the results of the copyvio tool.--Ykraps (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66
(talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't think that a detailed breakdown of the crew is appropriate for the infobox. Remember that it's supposed to be a summary of the basic stats/career of the ship.
 * Done.
 * 18 vessels forming part of the Coventry-class part? Class article says 19 completed, not 18, although the last ships was considerably later than the earlier ones.
 * Done.
 * En-dash is used between ranges of numbers, like page numbers, etc.
 * Done.
 * Link launched, tons burthen (and keel, gun deck and quarterdeck in the infobox)
 * Done except tons burthen which I'm seeing as already linked in the second par of the construction section?
 * she was relocated to Deptford How about returned?
 * Done.
 * Levant was returned to Portsmouth in early 1775 why "was"?
 * Removed.
 * France entered the War why is war capitalized?
 * Fixed.
 * four assistant carpenters an assistant sailmaker comma after carpenters
 * Done.
 * Royal Navy vessels of equivalent size and design to Levant were also capable of carrying up to 20 tons of powder and shot, compared with a standard French capacity of around 10 tons. Royal Navy vessels Don't use "Royal Navy" in close conjunction.
 * Reworded.
 * Be consistent with spacing between p. and page numbers
 * Done.
 * Sadly, the cite newspaper template generates a space between p. and the page numbers. So I think that you're going to have to go back in and add a space for all your other cites to maintain consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, done.
 * Be consistent about using title case for all books and articles in the citations
 * A quick question re this: I've used title case for all the books, and for the names of the newspaper articles, but I've left the capitalization in the individual newspaper stories as they are in the original (for example Ref 48: "Extract of a letter from Gibraltar .." is the way it is capitalized in the actual newspaper) Should I change these article titles to titlecase as well for consistency?
 * Yes. Newspapers are notoriously inconsistent about capitalization in the article titles. Best to impose consistency on them one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems, done (I think).
 * I only caught one word that needed to be capitalized and I went ahead and did for you.--Sturmvogel 66
 * Thanks.

Comments from FunkMonk

 * I'll start reviewing soon. First thought, could we show an image of a similar ship (Coventry-class frigate?), to give the reader an idea of how this one looked? FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's one of HMS Carysfort, which I've added as a test. I suspect I have cropped it too much from the original, visible at Coventry-class frigate. Views welcome on whether that image in its entirety would be a better fit here.
 * Either way, I think it's a good move. I'll return with other comments. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Admiralty Order" What is this?
 * It's the term for a formal Admiralty directive that a thing be done; for example a class of ships be established, a fleet set sail, a commanding officer adopt a certain battle plan. The first Admiralty Order was issued in 1649 (establishing the existence of the Admiralty), and there've been many thousands of them since then. Because most of them have been preserved they've become a standard reference source for the doings of the RN, and were an early foundation for proceedings in RN court martials and UK-related maritime commercial disputes. Which is all very well, but I appreciate this may be needlessly complex terminology, so have rephrased as "Orders from Admiralty" to use the words as they're more commonly applied.
 * Anything on why it was named Levant?
 * I might have something on ship names ... will have a look and come back.
 * Added a few sentences on names, in the "Construction" section.
 * Some words are not linked at first occurrence outside the into, such as Seven Years War, Royal Navy, American Revolutionary War, and privateers.
 * Thanks, wasn't aware of this requirement. Done.
 * Since you link other places perhaps also link Bay of Algiers, Bordeaux, Newfoundland, Philadelphia, Antigua, etc.?
 * Done, also Cádiz and South Carolina.
 * "where the Dey received her" Perhaps make it clear this was the ruler?
 * Done.
 * "Duchess of Grumont" Why would a French ship have an English name, is it a translation? If so, I'm thinking the original name would be more appropriate.
 * Good point, but am reluctant to change this as it is named this way in the source, which specifically translates this name and not adjoining ones: "The Victorieux, [Captain] Valentine, from Isle de Re to Marseilles, and the Duchess of Grumont , [Captain] Paregi, from Toulon, are taken and sent into Gibraltar by the Levant man of war." (Saunders's News Letter, 1/10/1778). On this basis I'd prefer to leave it as is, but happy to discuss further if you if you strongly support a translation.
 * I'm a bit puzzled why much the same text is both quoted in the last section as well as in an adjacent quote-box, but if no one else has brought it up, I guess it's ok.
 * Parsecboy also raised this. Have removed the quotebox and slightly expanded the quote in text.
 * "but played no notable role in the landings or subsequent defeat of French forces at Fort Royal." Not stated explicitly outside the intro, which should not have unique info.
 * Done.
 * Support - looks good to me now, and very nice that there is now some text about the naming of the ship. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy
Not much from me, just a few nitpicks:
 * I see a number of duplicate links - there's a handy script here you can use to find them easily.
 * Thanks, that's a very handy tool! Done.
 * I believe ranks ought to be omitted after an individual is introduced
 * "...28-gun Coventry-class frigate sixth-rate frigate..." - two issues here: first, frigate is repeated, and it's also a bit of a sea of blue. I might rephrase it to "a 28-gun sixth-rate frigate of the Coventry-class frigate..." to break up the links a bit.
 * Done.
 * I assume no work was done between 1763 and 1766?
 * That's right. The April 1763 holes in the hull were sufficiently repaired that she was able to get to Portsmouth without sinking, but there she was essentially abandoned under the dubious watch of a skeleton crew. The fact of a survey in late 1763 suggests some reason to be concerned about her condition, but a) alas the actual content of the survey is not available, and b) there is no record of any money being spent on her at all in these years. She was probably in a sorry state when Captain Keith took her back to the Caribbean in 1766, and I'm mildly surprised she lasted three years there without falling apart. The oak-built frigates like Levant lasted better than the fir-built ones, but this peacetime period would still have been the low point for her condition. This seems supported by the magnitude of the 1770 repairs, which cost more than her original construction thirteen years earlier.
 * I haven't checked Winfield because I'm not near my books at the moment but the Gazette appears to be saying she captured four vessels in February 1765 [].--Ykraps (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. Suspect this is a reference to vessels captured before 1763, but only paid out as prizes in 1764. But even then I cannot find any other reference in Winfield, Clowes or the Newspaper Archive to any of these vessels? I can find one reference to Superbe as being captured by Echo (Laforey's ship before Levant), plus a Leeds Intelligencer article of Dec 12 1764 which lists the crews of Levant and Echo together in announcing prize monies. lists the crews of Levant and Echo together for receipt of prize money. Makes me wonder if Laforey brought his crew with him at time of the transfer, hence a payout to Levant's 1764 crew for prizes taken when they were all still in Echo.''But that's supposition.


 * On dates, if these were captured byLevant (ie if this article is accurate) then they weren't in 1765 (gazette is Dec 1764?) and I reckon they were pre-1763 given Winfield puts Levant'' out of service at that time. Not unusual for prizes to be paid out well after time, as you know. Especially if they were captured in the Caribbean and not home waters. Will have a hunt about for anything that supports the Gazette mention; if I can't find anything will note this single and annoyingly contradictory source in the text. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, my mistake, the Gazette clearly says "That they will be paid their respective shares thereof, at the King's  Arms on Tower-Hill, as follows.." so yes, captured before and the date refers to when the prize money was to be given out.--Ykraps (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these, have added them to the article. As a piece of original research I'd be tempted to say the only credible period for their capture is between April 1760 and the end of 1761 - the Caledonian Mercury (ref 18) lists all captures by any vessel as at April 1760 and doesn't mention these; and by January 1762 Levant had been attached to the fleet for Martinique and would not have been out hunting privateers. But as this is speculation, I've simply noted as being post-April 1760 (given Mercury source).
 * If you're interested, I discovered other captures while cross-referencing sources in the Gazette: The recapture of Nine Colliers (5 August 1779), a French xebec (Eclair ) taken 31 March 1779 and another French ship (Theses) on 14 March 1779. The last two were taken while in the company of Enterprize.[] And what appears to be the capture of Conquerant by Emerald on 19 November 1760 while in the company of Levant.[] Just a suggestion but you could include in a footnote, "The London Gazette reports.....but these captures are not recorded in Winfield, etc.....". But I leave it to you entirely.--Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC) (sorry for hijacking your comments section, Parsecboy)
 * Thanks also for these. Have added Nine Colliers and Thessee. The xebec Éclair was already there, as the unnamed vessel captured on 1 April, so have just added the name (plus reference).


 * Why is the quotation from Gower repeated in the prose and the box? Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote seemed a bit long to include in its entirety in the text, but happy to do so to avoid the duplication.
 * 'Further: to avoid the duplication, have removed the quotebox and slightly expanded the quote in text.

Closing comment: This has had substantial commentary now and at the A-Class review. I get the impression that Parsecboy is finished, but if there are any further points, they can be raised on the talk page, as there is no real need to keep this open any longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.