Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009.

Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo

 * Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, another of my periodic Napoleonic naval orders of battle, this list supplements the article Battle of San Domingo, now wending its way along the torturous road to FAC. The list is quite simple: its an order of battle and casualties total for the battle, providing statistical support to the narrative text, although hopefully I've given enough context to the list that it makes sense on its own as well. Any comments welcome and thankyou very much. Jackyd101 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done (I think)--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support After having another couple of read-throughs I can't see any issues. Meets all of the FL criteria as far as I see. Well done, regards, Woody (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * After you answer all of the Rambling Man's comments, please don't hesitate to contact me because I would love to give a review to this article. But some of our comments are the same.-- T ru  c o   503 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I haven't been ignoring these comments, I just haven't had an uninterrupted stretch of time in which to address them. I will get to them as soon as I am able. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Life is real, Wikipedia, well, isn't...!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I have only two things to criticize :--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Harvnb would be more adequate for the book references and is used on multiple featured articles.
 * There's no reason to change from one citation style to another; the existing system is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As far as I understand the Notes column is about the State of the ships so how about changing it from notes to "State" or "Damage".
 * 1) What do you think are the advantages of the Harvard system to the one currently in use and why would it improve the article to use them. 2) I'm afraid I disagree - The notes in the Notes section are not limited to state of ships or their damage and I think it is better left as it is. Thanks for your participation,--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Harvnb makes links to book references so that when clicked it would highlight the Book that is used, instead of the reader looking for which book was actually used. I did it for Woodman, you can check it out...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's useful when the list of inline citations or references is long. However, you can see both the inline citations and bibliography in one screen, making cross-checking easy even without harvnb. It's up to Jacky. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments A few discrepancies, some based on the data in the Gazette link and this Naval History book, which may or may not need fixing.
 * A note on these sources - I am aware of them, but have chosen to use one selectively and the other not at all. The Gazette was written in the immediate aftermath of the battle and without the full range of facts. Subsequent sources have, as is common, revealed a number of errors and discrepancies. As for the second source, Edward Pelham Brenton is a chronically unreliable source and should only be used when supported by other sources. His scholarship was atrocious and he came under repeated attacks for his poor research in both contemporary and later histories.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agamemnon had 64 guns according to both sources.
 * You are correct, this was a typo, fixed.


 * Alexandre had 84 guns according to both sources.
 * It is not certain exactly how many guns Alexandre carried, certainly some sources suggest 84. However Alexandre ' s rate was 80, and that is total used in the table.


 * Diomède had 84 guns according to both sources.
 * Not true, Diomede had 74 guns - see above regarding sources.


 * The surname of the Captain on Impérial was Pigot according to both sources.
 * Two of the sources quoted in the article (James and Clowes) give Bigot as the captain's name. I am more disposed to trust them than the two above, but I will check with a French user who helps with these articles.


 * The total casualties at the bottom of the British table doesn't add up.
 * Another typo, fixed.


 * French squadron section states: "the assumed totals for Impérial and Diomède, which are even less certain but reportedly totalled 500 and 300 respectively" Diomède had 250 casualties according to table.
 * I will look into this and sort it out.
 * I've researched and established that the best estimate is 250. Article changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

--Jpeeling (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The image's alt text needs fixing, it's currently the same as the caption. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are there two brigs listed in the section labeled "frigates". Brigs are not frigates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.129.88 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is technically true, although I don't think anyone is going to be confused by it. What alternative term do you suggest?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon consideration I've changed it, hope that is better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.