Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Glorious First of June

Glorious First of June
About a month ago I started work on this fairly neglected article in my userspace, hoping to turn it into a good piece. It snowballed a little more than I was expecting and now is accompanied by two daughter articles, May 1794 Atlantic campaign and Glorious First of June order of battle. I realise this is an awful lot of words, but if anyone can give me any pointers on any part of these articles it would be greatly appreciated. I am hoping over the next few months to take all three to FA quality and any advice to this end would be appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Excellent articles, overall. As far as the daughter articles are concerned, I think the titles ought to be changed to something more grammatically palatable; my suggestions would be Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (or Atlantic campaign (May 1794)) and Order of battle at the Glorious First of June. The latter of these will be better suited for featured list status than featured article; I doubt an article consisting mostly of tables will pass FAC.

As for the specifics of this article:
 * The title of the first section is a bit misleading, I think, as you're not really discussing the wars as a whole; I'd suggest changing it to the standard "Background" (or "Prelude", although that would be more the role of the later "May 1794" section).
 * Personally, I find the wording of details more natural than that of main.
 * "Rear-Admiral Joseph-Marie Nielly had sailed from Rochefort to meet the convoy in mid-Atlantic five battleships and assorted cruisers" - surely you mean ships of the line and frigates? ;-)
 * A tactical map of the action would do wonders for readers trying to follow the text, I think.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, I will certainly think on the article titles and I should have clarified that the order of battle was intended to be a FL not an FA. I will change the details and the first title as suggested. As for the third point, battleships was (and in some sources still is) a synonymous term with ships of the line and can be less of a mouthful. As for cruisers, I was using the word in the more general sense of a "cruising warship" i.e. frigates and smaller rather than the modern cruiser. These terms may be obsolete however, so I will investigate replacing them if they are confusing. I have been unable to find a tactical map of the engagement with or without copyright except this version from the German wikipedia which is confusing and in some areas rather inaccurate. My search continues but if anyone else turns one up please let me know. Thanks again--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jacky - if you have on-line copyrighted maps, it may be worth giving a ping.  He did the map on Battle of the Gebora (an FA) for me, and didn't take too long about it either.  I provided an image of a map of dubious copyright, and he used that to base his own version on.  So, I'm sure if you asked, and had a bit of patience (he's not too active, I don't think), he'd be able to help you out.  Carre (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have replied, just an update. I think I have addressed everything mentioned, and User:Rama is doing an excellent job sorting out the correct names of the French ships and officers which were muddled by the sources I used (and by me). The only thing I have not dealt with is the lack of a map in the article. Try as i might, I cannot find a useful map online which I can give to mapmaster and in addition, almost all the maps I come across offline are contradictory, confusing or plain wrong. For now, a map seems to be an unlikely proposition unless one can be found. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, Order of battle at the Glorious First of June is now a featured list. If anyone is willing to run over the main Glorious First of June article with a copyedit, I would appreciate it so that I can take it to FA. I have been criticised in the past for my prose style and this might ease the articles passage if some respected editors could look it over. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)