Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Temeraire (1798)/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 SandyGeorgia 01:52, 24 January 2012.

HMS Temeraire (1798)

 * Nominator(s): Benea (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because having worked this article up through the GA and A class review stages, I feel this article now meets the necessary criteria. She was one of the most famous ships of the Royal Navy during the age of sail, a fame that endured through the legacy of Turner's painting, making her second only to HMS Victory in the history of the Nelsonic Navy. Benea (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Check title on Winfield - citations and reference entry don't match
 * Fixed
 * Be consistent in whether you include both author in shortened citations to two-author works
 * Fixed
 * Be consistent in whether date ranges are included in shortened citation titles, where applicable
 * Fixed the one example (Gardiner) I could see.
 * Compare capitalization between citations and reference entries, ex Warwick
 * Fixed
 * Fn 83: italicization
 * Italicized
 * Hodder & Stoughton or Hodder and Stoughton?
 * Hodder & Stoughton used throughout.
 * Where is Newton Abbot? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Newton Abbot is in Devon. What would you like to see changed? Benea (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually this means that the location in the references could be linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This is an excellent, thorough article on a very interesting subject. The prose looks good in general and there were very few issues with jargon. As a non-expert, this seems very comprehensive. It is quite long, so I have a list of fairly minor questions and comments. I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sarastro. Benea, I'll work on these tomorrow unless you tell me otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Is there a reason for the single quotation marks for Fighting Temeraire?
 * "Her duties were tedious and seldom relieved by any action with the French fleet." I doubt that the ship could find it tedious; maybe clarify this to "tedious for the crew…"
 * Link mutiny?
 * "so committing an act of mutiny. The mutiny eventually failed and a number of the mutineers were tried and executed": Slightly inelegant here with close repetition of mutiny and the similar mutineers. Maybe "…to obey orders. This act of mutiny failed and a number of those responsible were tried and executed".
 * "She was asked specifically to join Horatio Nelson's blockade": Again, in danger of personification of the ship.
 * "Temeraire returned to public renown in Britain": Not quite sure about this phrasing; public acclaim may be better, or "won/achieved public renown after the battle"
 * "Further service saw her move to Sheerness": Not convinced about this use of "saw", but I appreciate the need to avoid repeating sentence structures. I can't think of anything better at the moment, and it's not a huge issue.
 * "The painting was greeted with critical acclaim, which has endured": Again not sure about the phrasing. Maybe "… with critical acclaim. The painting continues to be held in high regard and was voted Britain's favourite painting in 2005".
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Construction and commissioning
 * "Temeraire was laid down at Chatham in July 1793": Jargon? What does "laid down" mean for the benefit of the non-specialist.
 * "The initial stages of her construction were overseen by Master Shipwright Thomas Pollard, though he was succeeded by Edward Sison on 25 June 1795, and Sison oversaw her completion.": Maybe cut this back to "…Thomas Pollard and completed by his successor Edward Sison".
 * "Her final costs came to £73,241, and included £59,428 spent on the hull, masts and yards, and a further £13,813 on rigging and stores.": I know this can be a controversial subject, but some modern equivalents would be useful here. However, I know some people hate doing that so feel free to ignore this one.
 * Done. I believe it's a little too old for a meaningful inflated figure. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. For anyone who's interested, there are a couple of links to extensive discussions at User:Dank/Copy3. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, one editor at least was vehemently opposed to this at my last ship FA, HMS Speedy (1782). Benea (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With the Channel Fleet
 * As very much a non-specialist with a vague interest in the historical period, I got a little confused here knowing how the command structure worked; we are told about Rear-Admirals and Admirals, captains and commanders. If the Temeraire was the flagship, how did this affect its operation? And who was in command of it, the admiral or the rear-admiral. I think this could all be made slightly clearer.
 * The Captain was in command of the ship; an Admiral (or any other flag officer) was in command of the fleet or squadron, but he (and his staff officers) would be based and quartered (accommodated) upon a ship fitted out as a flagship, from which they would diurect the actions of the entire fleet or squadron. But this article is not the place for an explanation of the rank structure of the Royal Navy. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than link Amiens to the place, would it be better linked to the Treaty?
 * Not done. Benea? - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'm not sure here on either point. Reading the sentence 'and negotiations for peace were underway at Amiens', I would expect the link here to be to the location. The actual reference to the treaty that was finally negotiated comes several sections later, after the mutiny. So I suppose you could have a piped link over 'negotiations for peace' as a nod to the treaty that would eventually be signed, but it would perhaps be a little misleading to link Amiens there in this context. Benea (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Return to service
 * "was thwarted in his attempt to unite with the French forces at Brest": Not sure about the use of unite here. Perhaps "join" or "combine" would be better.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)


 * Temeraire at Trafalgar
 * The start of the second paragraph perhaps uses "fleet" too much.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)


 * The Fighting Temeraire
 * Why does this require a new section? It would work perfectly well with the last section.
 * "to prevent colliding with": "to prevent a collision with" may be more elegant but has been used shortly after. But as it stands it seems a bit of an ugly phrase.
 * "Harvey brought Temeraire around, appearing suddenly out of the smoke of the battle and slipping across Redoutable's stern, discharged a double-shotted broadside into her": The verbs seem a little confused here and should agree. Also, what is "double-shotted"? It should be explained if it is significant.
 * Done. Linked double-shotted; it means twice as much shot was used. - Dank (push to talk)


 * Temeraire and Fougueux
 * "On learning that nearly all of the officers were dead or wounded": On learning does not seem quite right.
 * "Eight feet of her starboard hull had been stove in": Nor does this.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I don't think "bashed" is an improvement and have modified this to "was staved in". You may prefer "stove" but I think "staved" sounds more elegant here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The storm
 * "Temeraire rode out the storm following the battle, sometimes being taken in tow by less damaged ships, sometimes riding at anchor.": It is not quite clear here whether the ship was fit to move on its own or was it too damaged to sail by itself?
 * "All her sails and yards had been destroyed" does it for me. - Dank (push to talk)


 * General
 * Several examples of "with noun verbing" e.g. "with the flames spreading"
 * Fixed these myself; I don't think there are any more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a big issue, but some of the sections could possibly be combined and I'm not a huge fan of having Temeraire in so many titles, but I would not insist on either of these points
 * I've removed Temeraire from 3 headings and left it in 2; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * References: 52 out of 83 references are to Willis. This is probably inevitable so I personally have no problem with it as this will undoubtedly be the best reference. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not done. Benea? - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Willis is the only book length biography of Temeraire that exists, so inevitably the article relies fairly heavily on that. There are good Temeraire specific sections in Winfield and Goodwin, which are used as well, otherwise Temeraire only appears in passing in the more general naval histories of the period, which have been brought in to develop the picture and provide further support and occasionally some detail for the article. I've looked at the structure and headings, I wouldn't strongly oppose any changes, but nor do I think they are especially necessary, if it is not a deal breaker. Benea (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: I have one or two minor reservations about prose, as there may be a little redundancy in places, but not enough to prevent a support. It may be worth going through and checking if it could be tightened further and I may pick at it a bit myself in the next day or two. Otherwise, the remaining issues are not "deal-breakers". Perhaps make the command structure of the fleet (my point about admirals and rear-admirals above) clearer but maybe I'm being a little dense. My support is not affected by any of these points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Eyles was superseded during this period by Temeraire's former commander, Captain Puget, who resumed command on 14 October 1799, ": Does this mean "Eyles was replaced on 14 October 1799 by Temeraire's former commander, Captain Puget,"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see you're using "superseded" in the same sense in the next paragraph. Cambridge Dictionaries defines it as: "to replace something, especially something older or more old-fashioned".  I'll check Garner's when I get home to make sure, but "supersede" would not be my preferred word choice here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "superceded" is the term which the Navy used at the time. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Garner's suggests but doesn't say that my sense is right.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked over them in detail (apologies for the absence, holidays and all that) but I am sure they are of your usual high standard. I had looked over Sarastro1's comments previously, and found them generally perfectly reasonable. Thanks for getting to them sooner than I would have! Superseded could be replaced with 'replaced' I suppose, but that is also not an ideal term, given the nature of changing commissions ('replaced' implies to me at least an element of dissatisfaction with the previous commander that meant he was replaced with a better one) and superseded is the term often used in the histories like Goodwin. But I've no strong objection to it being substituted. Benea (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point about "replaced". People might suggest wording at WT:SHIPS or WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Turner,_J._M._W._-_The_Fighting_Téméraire_tugged_to_her_last_Berth_to_be_broken.jpg is tagged as lacking source info, and the description page appears to have been vandalized. Also, does this image need to be used twice?
 * File:Battle_of_Trafalgar,_Plate_1.jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Page and source info added. There are very few historic contemporary images of Temeraire available, and Turner's painting is not only the most famous, it is also one of the very few that takes as this ship specifically as its subject. She appears in passing in some of the Trafalgar paintings, but the clearest PD image of Temeraire is in Turner's painting. It would be great to have one of Geoff Hunt's paintings (all under copyright) or Cooke's painting of her as a guardship (I've hunted high and low, and I simply cannot find an accessible version) for the infobox. This makes Turner's the best we have to illustrate the subject in the infobox, and as the immediately identifiable image, is correctly placed prominently at the top of the article. The connection of Temeraire to the painting is an extremely important one, and it makes obvious sense to display the image a second time when discussing the painting in detail towards the end of the article. Benea (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am the only editor (that I know of) currently active editing articles on Turner. I saw this discussion by chance and thought I should mention that I have big reservations about the current Turner image used in the article. (There is a higher resolution scan of "the Fighting Temeraire" available on the national gallery website - though it has no better colours than the current image so I have not uploaded it.) Neither the image currently in the article or the image on the national gallery site are very accurate reproductions of the actual picture imho. I would be concerned that if this article is promoted to FA with the current images it would give an (unintentionally) misleading impression of the Turner painting. Ajbp (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You say that the image on the national gallery's own website is an inaccurate reproduction of the picture it has in its own collections? Given the recent litigation over the use of images from the National Gallery's website on Wikipedia, I really wouldn't recommend touching it anyway. But can you be more specific, what makes it an inaccurate reproduction? Finally, this is not a FA review for the picture itself, I'm not sure how far these comments have weight for the FA-review process. Benea (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to legal threats I think you are mistaking the national gallery for the National Portrait Gallery - they are actually different institutions and as far as I know we have never had problems with the national gallery. I am not necessarily objecting to this article becoming featured. It is just that the colour accuracy of the turner image currently in the article is not great and that for accuracies sake I wonder if we can do better. The image currently used in the article is far too yellow. The image from the national gallery website has a strange dull caste to it, but I think it could probably be brightened a little bit to improve it and then used as a decent effort at providing an accurate reproduction. - it is on my list of things to get round to at some point - but if you would like me to I can try and upload a brightened copy of that scan which you might prefer to use instead? Ajbp (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps moving out of the scope of this review. If a better image of the Turner painting can be found and uploaded, then all well and good. As it is, we are using a representative and free use image, the best we have available at the moment. You might wish to talk to some of the image experts on commons and on WP:MILHIST. I'm not entirely sure what level of tweaking of the colours of historic images and paintings by wikipedia users is considered permissible, there may be OR issues or similar to consider. Benea (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree that it would be better to get someone who is more experienced in this area to consider the issue. I'll upload the NG scan as an alternate image and get the image desk magicians to see how they can improve it without affecting the integrity of the image.Ajbp (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit awkward: With no immediate service available with the drawdown of the navy in the peace, Temeraire was laid up in the Hamoaze for the next eighteen months. Perhaps something along the lines of: "Because of the drawdown in the size of the active navy as a result of the peace..."
 * What are "chains" and quarter galleries? Link to rudder or rudderhead, hulk, victualling-depot, ebb of the tide, and cat-head.
 * Were the tugs steam-powered?. Interesting to know if Turner's depiction is correct or if he heightened the contrast and poignancy by using a steam-powered sidewheele tug in the painting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the links, and reworded. The tugs were steam powered, so Turner required no extra poignancy there. Incidentally my reference work notes that the tug type only became possible with the application of steam power, so I suppose all tug boats must be, and have been, mechanically propelled in some form. 'Thames Steam Towing Company' did it for me, but I've altered it to 'steam tugs' in the article as well. Benea (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
 * AFAIK - I don't think there is any evidence that suggests turner actually saw the scene as depicted. (one biography describes the painting as "a fiction - a superimposition of many ideas and emotion") - but equally no evidence that a steam tug would not have been used. Ajbp (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have this article's sources been spotchecked? Ucucha (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There were no spotchecks at the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks good with the changes, switching from Comments from Ealdgyth. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead: "The first incident of note came when a group of sailors, hearing rumours they were to be sent.." I'm assuming that these were sailors on the Temeraire?
 * Changed to 'several of her crew'. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "She was converted to a prison ship, spending until 1819 moored in the River Tamar in this role." Awkward - needs rewording.
 * I went with: "She was converted to a prison ship and moored in the River Tamar until 1819." - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Construction: "...was a 98-gun second-rate ship of the line of the..." in the lead but "...had been the 74-gun third rate HMS Temeraire, a former..." - so are we hyphenating the rate or not?
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "This Temeraire retained her French name after her capture, and served during the Seven Years' War, before being sold out of the service in 1784.[3] Puget was only in command until 26 July 1799..." the jump here between the two sentence's subjects is jarring - can we move the information about the first Temeraire to a footnote or something?
 * Moved to a footnote. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, what the heck does Temeraire MEAN in French?
 * Bold, if I'm not mistaken.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tricky, there is no direct translation. "Temeraire means nothing in English; an indistinct mix of rash and recklessness, it carries none of the undertones of foolhardiness that those words imply in English." Willis, p. 55. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Rear-Admiral"? I don't think I've ever seen this hyphenated...
 * I've seen it, but in BritEng articles, we're usually hyphenating Vice-Admiral but not Rear Admiral. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "...until his replacement, Captain Thomas Eyles, arrived to assume command..." surely this is "resume command"?
 * Changed. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mutiny: "...court-martialled in two batches aboard HMS Gladiator, anchored in Portsmouth, the first held on 6 January 1802, the second on 14 January." I think "...court-martialled in two batches aboard HMS Gladiator, anchored in Portsmouth, the first court held on 6 January 1802 and the second on 14 January." would flow a bit better.
 * Does this work? "On the ship's arrival, the 14 imprisoned ringleaders were swiftly court-martialled in Portsmouth aboard HMS Gladiator (1783), some on 6 January 1802 and the rest on 14 January." - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Med service: "...now under the command of Sir Charles Hamilton." We give the naval rank of all the other captains... what was Hamilton's?
 * Captain. Added. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Retirement: "...under the title 'Guardship of the Ordinary and Captain-Superintendent's ship of the Fleet Reserve in the Medway'." Shouldn't these be double quotation marks?
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sale: "...transporting the ship 55 miles from Sheerness..." shouldn't there be a km conversion here?
 * It may be inaccurate to do so, depending on whether the distance was measured in nautical or statute miles. Benea (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Art: "...been known to her crew as the 'saucy' Temeraire." double quotes again here, I believe.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, just these niggles above. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeesh, sorry I missed so much on this one, spot on. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Query: Benea, have you had a spotcheck for accuracy in representation of sources and close paraphrasing on a previous FAC? If so, pls link-- if not, still pending. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing mentioned on the most recent FAC, Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive2. Benea (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... perhaps you could encourage a MilHist person to dig in and get that part done :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posted a note at WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS. Benea (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I pinged Rif Winfield, since he surely has the sources :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would expect that he would at least be able to confirm his own book :) Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. As regards my own cited book, I should point out that the reference quotes the publisher and (wrong) date of the 2nd edition (Seaforth Publishing, 2008 not 2007) but then confusingly gives the ISBN number of the 1st edition (Chatham Publishing. 2005). The correct ISBN for the 2nd edition is ISBN 978-1-84415-717-4. The other cited titles all seem correct and relevent, although I haven't checked their ISBNs. I have inserted a couple of remarks re the article elsewhere in this conversation. Incidentally, re SandyGeorgia's remark below, I should add that simply because a book has not been cited within a particular article is no reason for excluding it from a Reference List, if it contains relevent background material which would help a reader to learn more about issues and events described by that article. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adkins, Roy (2005). Trafalgar: The Biography of a Battle. London: Abacus. ISBN 0-349-11632-6.
 * but although it is listed in the References section, it is not used to cite anything (??)-- should probably be removed from Reference list, but I'm wondering why it's not used? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cite 74? Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ack, sorry, I was searching for the term "Biography", and missed it. I have access to the US edition, which is published under the name of "Nelson's Trafalgar: The Battle That Changed the World".  It's paginated the same as the UK version, and p. 147 verifies "fighting" vs. "saucy" text, with no close paraphrasing.  "Most famous" isn't cited there, not a quibble, and the rest of that text is apparent from the painting.  That's all I can do :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Image check and .  Are better links possible on each?  All I get is the main page of the museum, the same for both.  Also, on the Harvey image, can you do better on the image page in terms of the author?  "Brown" is what is listed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The NMM has very recently overhauled its website. I've updated the links. Benea (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the more technical aspects: The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox image caption, that Turner painting was "executed" in 1839, not 1838 according our own article.
 * Willis explicitly states 'In 1838 he finished his canvas, which he carefully entitled...' The confusion in The Fighting Temeraire article may stem from the fact that it was first presented at the Royal Academy Exhibition in early 1839. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm the "x" in the infobox for, say, "28 x 32-pounder" is a times sign and not just an x?
 * Yes. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it Treaty or Peace of Amiens? Could confuse a non-expert that you've used both terms but linked to the same article each time.
 * One reference is correctly to the Treaty, the other to the Peace. Peace of Amiens redirects to the Treaty. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "member of parliament" is, according to our article with ref to the UK, a Member of Parliament.
 * Changed Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Check image captions, per MOS:CAPTION, punctation is in need of attention.
 * Can you be more specific? I'm not seeing anything that is not in keeping with the MOS. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "An 1848 plan of the fleet positions at the Battle of Trafalgar. Temeraire forms part of the weather column, and is depicted abreast of the Victory, racing her for the Franco-Spanish line" because you already have a period here, the second sentence should have a period too. Infobox caption isn't actually a real sentence either, just a title of a painting, so would imagine it shouldn't have a  period. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed. Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another caption note : "..(right foreground) and the Temeraire (left, seen bow on)..." our MOS suggests we avoid "left"s and "right"s.
 * Removed lefts and rights. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Port Admiral really just Port admiral?
 * Changed. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * " sailed to Sheerness Dockyard" a bit misleading, there's no article on the dockyard, so perhaps "to the dockyard at Sheerness".
 * This makes the meaning less precise, and fails to distinguish the Royal Dockyard at Sheerness with the civilian docks and shipbuilding concerns there. There should certainly be an article on the dockyard itself, as one of the principle navy bases for several centuries (as with Woolwich, Deptford, Chatham, etc). I may get around to writing one if I have time. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but would prefer it to be a redlink than to just link to Sheerness as that makes the meaning less precise. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't really see how that is. The link is to Sheerness Dockyard, which would be the correct title for the article to be written under in due course. At the moment that link is a redirect to Sheerness, which does contain some information on the history and working of the Royal Dockyard there. Any redlink would not only be the wrong link for the article, it would also be suboptimal for the reader looking for information. Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Marine Society" looks like it should be "The Marine Society".
 * Sources use 'the Marine Society' consistently in reference to this period, and in the sources used here (Willis, Winfield, College, Goodwin, etc). 'The Marine Society' appears to be a modern construction, which the society is rather anachronistically backdating.
 * Okay, no problem, our own article could use some attention...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "1838-9" (image caption) should use an en-dash, and probably also be 1838–39.
 * Changed.Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is using the same image twice conventional in an featured article?
 * I've explained my reasoning above. Benea (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, your reasoning is noted but I've never seen the same image used twice in an article, seems incongruous to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be away from tomorrow for some time (likely over a week). I may be able to check in from time to time, but my access might be intermittent, and I will have reduced access to sources. Nevertheless I will do what I can if new issues arise, but it may take a little time. Benea (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


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