Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French ship Vengeur du Peuple


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Not promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

French ship Vengeur du Peuple

 * Nominator(s): Rama (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed its GA review with encouraging comments; as always, it would be a good thing to label it if it passes the requirements, and to identify things to improve if it does not. Rama (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a dablink.
 * There is a deadlink.
 * Infobox
 * Chamber of Commerce – should be sentence case
 * Link Coulomb and Chapelle
 * Why Third Battle of Ushant and not Glorious First of June?
 * Lead
 * The first word of Chamber of commerce (in the lead and later) should probably not be capitalized. The same with {{{!xt|Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War}}.
 * Admiral d'Estaing and John Griffiths should be linked
 * battle of the Chesapeake probably should be capitalized
 * Career
 * 1,150,00 (note 3) – is this supposed to be 1,150,000?
 * 145 kilogrammes of gold should use convert
 * Link Toulon
 * by engineer Coulomb and by engineer Chapelle seem to be missing a the
 * arcked – can this be linked?
 * Campaign of 1778–1780 under La Poype de Vertrieu
 * Is under ... really necessary in this and the following titles?
 * where he arrived on 28 – probably where he arrived on 28 July
 * Fantasque, Sagittaire, Protecteur, Provence, Zélé, and Expériment should be linked.
 * coming 6th in the line should be sixth, 8th in the line of battle should be eighth
 * mizzen and bowsprit should be linked
 * I got until Campaign of 1780 under Albert de Rions. I'll continue later. Inkbug (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I should have addressed all these points, and I look forwards very much for the rest, should you have the time and inclination to do it as well. The deadlink/disambiguation tools are great. On "Third Battle of Ushant", I tend to find it less specifically British than "Glorious First of June" (which I also find a bit weird), and not too French-specific like "Combat de Prairial"; but this is not the place to militate for different names for battles, and if English-speaking people are much more familiar with "Glorious First of June", it should indeed be used. Thank you very much again and cheers! Rama (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently I wasn't clear in my comment about Campaign of 1778–1780 under La Poype de Vertrieu. I was suggesting Campaign of 1778–1780, without any mention of the commander, or maybe even just 1778–1780, without Campaign of. This not something major; I just like shorter titles better. Except for that, everything above seems fixed. Inkbug (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Campaign of 1780, Albert de Rions
 * Link Brest
 * Campaign of 1781–1782, Castellane Majastre
 * until the British were driven off – how?
 * 3300 soldiers should be 3,300
 * Link struck her colours
 * Campaign of 1782–1783, Lombard
 * Link chevalier de Lombard
 * Link Rochefort
 * Glorious First of June
 * The rescue is depicted in Lord Howe's action, or the Glorious First of June, Philippe-Jacques de Loutherbourg's canvas of the battle. Shouldn't this be in the legacy section?
 * The article, particularly towards the end, has many images, with very long captions. I think that some of the images can be removed, and almost all of the captions can be shortened.
 * I didn't go through the Legacy section thoroughly, although it seems to me to be suffering from quotation overload.
 * I haven't checked sourcing. However, it would be nice if the references would be consistent. Currently some refer to the bibliography section, while some link to external sites. Inkbug (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you've made some of the changes. One note: usually sites that are not books but used for references are placed in the references section, not the external links section. For an example, you can see USS Kearsarge (BB-5). No need to copy that article's formatting, but it might give you some ideas. Inkbug (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. I've gone through the links and formatting details, and harmonised the style of the citations.
 * I agree that the article is a bit heavy on images and that their captions are long, but most have actually some significance, either as themselves (like the statue at the Panthéon or the high relief on the statue of the Republic), or with respect to each other (the different engravings). So I find it difficult to prune the article. Do you have any idea?
 * Thank you again and cheers! Rama (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I have at least managed to trim the captions down a little bit. Rama (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The captions look much better. However:
 * File:Marseillois IMG 5944-white.jpg can use a closer crop (it will make the infobox bulge a bit less)
 * File:Glorieux combats de juin 1794.jpg – What about a caption like "Brunswick fighting Vengeur and Achille during the Glorious First of June, by Nicholas Pocock."?
 * File:Marseillois mg 6219.jpg is redundant to the image in the infobox
 * File:Le Vengeur.JPG can be moved to the side of the section in the text that talks about it.
 * The other images in the gallery don't seem to be adding much. It is clear from the images higher up in the article that the French depiction of the story was highly skewed, so I don't feel that they are necessary. In the external links section there is a link to the Commons category, so anyone who wants more pictures can go there.
 * Also, see my note above about the distinction between the external links and references sections. Inkbug (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I've trimmed down the images a bit further. The one by Mayer I'd really like to keep, it is a classic and probably the most accurate representation of the incident. Loutherbourg's painting being mentionned in the text, it makes sense to have it, I think. As for Dubois' statue at the Panthéon, it is not exactly what Barère had attempted to pass (his project was never implemented), so it is not exactly mentionned in the text.
 * You quite right for the others, the second of Ozanne's is almost a duplicate of the one in the body of the article, and the photograph of the stern of Vengeur is not the best of my images anyway. I have reduced the size of the one in the infobox to keep the template to its natural size.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I Support. Inkbug (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for you support, but most of all for your valuable improvements! Rama (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this article at GAN, and I think it's well-written, and concerns a fascinating subject. Rama, one note I have is that when viewing the article on my iPad, the "Propaganda depictions" gallery displays sort of funny - off-centered and with the images bunching to the left. That's not a crucial issue, but maybe someone with more formatting expertise knows how to optimize that setup for mobile devices.  Cdtew  (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Commments


 * "The Vengeur du Peuple ("Avenger of the People") was a 74-gun ship of the line of the French Navy. Funded by a don des vaisseaux donation from the chamber of commerce of Marseille, she was launched in 1762 as Marseillois." - the first few sentences of a lead are really important for getting and keeping a reader. Although wikilinked, very few, I suspect, will know what a "don des vaisseaux" is. If the sentence was reversed - "She was launched in 1762 as Marseillois, funded by a don des vaisseaux donation from the chamber of commerce of Marseille." - it would be much softer on the reader. If you wanted to be softer still, you could just go for "She was launched in 1762 as Marseillois, funded by a donation from the chamber of commerce of Marseille.", hyperlinking the donation to don des vaisseaux, and keeping the detail for the main article.
 * Three "duels/duelling" and three "took parts" in the lead, which was distracting.
 * "spurting numerous representations" - I'm not sure that "spurting" is the right verb here; did you mean "spawning"?
 * I'll try to work through the rest later. Hchc2009 (talk)

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)
 * Agreed with Hchc's comments.
 * "surrendered after losing hope to be rescued by French ship": not sure what this means
 * "listed": link (Glossary of nautical terms works for me)
 * "instrumentalised by the propaganda": used in the propaganda, maybe (but "propaganda" is a strong term, make sure it's accurate here)
 * "gave birth to the legend": a little flowery
 * "rather than surrender": without surrendering
 * "yielding a rebuttal": drawing a rebuttal
 * "Rear-admiral John Griffiths": Rear Admiral ...
 * "in naval history circles": among naval historians - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Status? What's the status on this; it's been almost a month and no effort appears to have been made to address the issues here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I have added a reminder about this ACR on the nominator's talk page. If there is no response soon, I propose closing the review unless someone else can respond to the outstanding comments. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'd agree -- pity as this review appeared to be chugging along quite well for the nominator... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, there has been no response to my post and the nominator has not been active since late May. As such, I have closed the review as it appears that it has been abandoned. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.