Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Levant (1758)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

HMS Levant (1758)

 * Nominator(s): 

An eighteenth century Royal Navy frigate with extensive service in the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War. Essentially a privateer hunter, she secured a creditable 24 victories in 21 years at sea. Have done a few GA's but this is my first A-class nomination: all comments or suggestions gratefully received. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "carrying rice and indigo worth £37,200, or £4.5 million in 2015 terms": You do see a lot of inflation figures on Wikipedia, but be aware that economists generally don't support blanket conversions like these from almost 250 years ago as having any meaning.
 * I take your point: have been including these comparisons since it was recommended to me during this FAC. Admittedly that was some years ago. Happy to remove if you prefer.
 * I prefer not to get involved in this issue, actually, just passing the information along. It's annoying that the FAC community can't seem to find consistency on inflation figures, despite what all the reliable sources say.
 * In places where you use "space hyphen space", convert all of them to en-dashes, per WP:DASH.
 * Done
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, the prose is easily good enough for FAC; whether it's comprehensive enough for FAC is something I hope we find out during this review. Gratz on Arbcom, btw, and best of the season to you. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Agree re FAC; I doubt there's much to be said for Levant that is not already here, but at its heart this is an article on a fairly minor vessel. The service history, and the available sources, are probably too limited for an FA. Still, thought I'd bring it here to get other views. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And best of the season to you too, from away down here in the tropics. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: nice work, I have a couple of suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * slightly inconsistent: "97 ft 3.625 in (29.7 m) (keel)" (in the infobox) v. "97 ft 4 in (29.7 m) keel" (in the body of the article);
 * Done. The source (Winfield) goes to the 3$5⁄8$ inch level of specificity, but I've rounded it to 4 for readability.
 * the "Vessels captured or sunk ... during the Seven Years War" table in the 1761-62 section appears to be uncited. Is there a way that you can add citations to it?
 * Done.
 * same as above for the "Vessels captured or sunk ... during the American Revolutionary War" table;
 * Done. I checked through some of the most recent featured lists but could not find a consistent style for how the references should be added; so have gone for the easiest option of a separate column at the right of each table. Suggestions welcome on this or any preferred alternative.
 * That looks like a good solution to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * in the quote box in the Final voyages section: "[t]he Levant was, after the commencement..." (I would suggest capitalising "[T]he...")
 * Done.
 * "File:Guadeloupe Banat 1.1.png": this might look a little better if the black border was cropped off;
 * Done
 * "File:USS Revenge (1777).jpg": the source link for this is dead, is it possible to find an archived version?
 * Done - the NHHC had moved the image, have redirected the link on the commons page.
 * thanks for the review, as above would welcome any views on the appropriate format for references in tables. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Great article. A couple of minor suggestions from me:


 * Perhaps link sixth-rate and frigate for the non-naval readers
 * Done
 * Perhaps adding ", Hampshire" after Buckler's Hard, just as an added aide (I clicked off the article to see where it was)
 * Done
 * Is there any known split of 200 officers and ratings, or did it vary?
 * Unfortunately it varied, not only from ship to ship but (to a lesser extent) from voyage to voyage. A ship of Levant's size would have had two or three commissioned officers: the captain and one or two lieutenants. There would have been a minimum of 11 petty officers: a master and master's mate, at least three midshipmen, purser, boatswain, gunner, cook, carpenter and surgeon. However its likely many of these had mates who acted as their deputies; if so these also held warrants as petty officers. Some vessels also carried a chaplain, sailmaker, quartermaster and/or master-at-arms, who would also have held petty officer warrants. Altogether, for a small vessel like this there may have been between 20-35 officers or petty officers, but without the paybook or captain's log there's no way to find a specific total.
 * Success! Found a breakdown of the official complement: 42 officers including 2 with commisisons, and 40 warrant or petty officers; then 158 others as follows - 91 naval ratings, 38 Marines and 29 servants and other ranks (including 4 entirely fictitious people). The petty officer ranks are inflated by the presence of 7 quarter-gunners, a trumpeter and the extremely dubious "Yeoman of the Powder Room," but a reliable source (a work by naval historian NAM Rodger) confirms these people were indeed assigned the status of petty officers, so in they go. Added to the article with ref.
 * Best to link Seven Years' War in the text
 * Done
 * Needs a comma after "of which Levant was part" (as much to split "was part was" as anything)
 * Done
 * Link to smallpox for those unfamiliar
 * Done

That's it: all very minor, nit-picky stuff. I won't pretend to know anything about the subject, so the review is based on prose only. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully done except the officer/crew split . Thanks for the review. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. Nicely done work. I thought that may be the case with the officers, but just wanted to check first. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.