Talk:Capture of USS Chesapeake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

At first glance, this looks like a solid article. I have some picky issues, raised below, but this looks very near Good Article status so far. I'm not done with my first readthrough, though--more will follow in the morning! For now, here's this:

For context in the lead, it's probably worth mentioning immediately that the War of 1812 was fought between Britain and the US; some readers may not be sufficiently familiar with the HMS and USS abbreviations to infer this.
"costing her her manoeuvrability" -- how about, "reducing her" or "decreasing her" to avoid the "her her"?
" Surviving timbers were used to build the nearby Chesapeake Mill in Wickham and can be seen and visited to this day." -- this sentence of the lead doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body, and doesn't have a citation. The latter problem is okay for GA, but the former should probably be fixed.
"'blindfold'" should this be "blindfolded"?
"A game called 'singlestick' was also devised and practised. " -- is it possible to say who devised this--was it Broke, or unknown? -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all the issues you have highlighted, except one. I can't find a reference for Broke having devised 'singlestick' so I have toned down the assertion. 'Blindfold' is the word used in the Padfield book, the word is used figuratively as the gun crews were not literally blindfolded, they were merely prevented from sighting down the gun barrel at the target, having to rely on the directions for bearing and elevation they were given. Urselius (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your quick response. I've had an unexpected job come up today and will be off and on wiki, but hopefully can get through the rest of this one shortly. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

"He finally decided to send a written challenge" -- is this the same challenge referred to in the earlier sentence "Consequently Broke decided to send his challenge to the USS Chesapeake, which had been refitting in Boston harbour under the command of Captain James Lawrence, offering single ship combat."? Or did he challenge the Chesapeake twice? Perhaps the earlier reference to the challenge could be eliminated to maintain strict chronology.

The challenge was singular. Perhaps rewording the earlier sentence to "...decided to challenge the Chesapeake..." would work? Then the sending of the written challenge is a logical extension of the decision to challenge mentioned earlier.

Sounds good.

Done.

~~"Poolman, Battles of the British Navy" -- since Poolman is quoting Broke here, perhaps rewrite as "Philip Broke, quoted in Poolman, Battles of the British Navy"~~

Yes, the attribution should be to Broke, primarily.

Sounds good.

Done.

If the block quotation (which, by the way, is one of my favorite block quotations I've ever read in a Wikipedia article) is an edited version of the original, why does it have footnotes to two sources? Do both sources contain the shortened version, and if so, who did the shortening?

I don't have the books quoted. I have the full message in Padfield, and the condensed version is accurate. Not sure what to do on that score. I did a search and the shortened quote is found here (p. 199): [1] As this is a much earlier publication it is probably the source for both of the later books.

Any of those will be fine then.

Ref changed - will put Padfield page numbers in later.

"it was to commerce raid" -- is "commerce raid" a standard phrase? "Raid commercial vessels" or some similar phrase would sound more natural to me, but I'm a) American (down with King George!) and b) not an expert.

~~-- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think "...it was to embark on a commerce-raiding mission..." would be a distinct improvement. Urselius (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sounds like a good change.

Done

"No practice at small arms nor of the main battery been exercised." -- seems like there's a word missing here. Perhaps "the crew had not practiced at small arms nor with the main battery."

Padfield records Lawrence exercising the crew of the Chesapeake at the great guns twice before he sailed. This passage may need revision. As the frigate was in port the excercise must have been a "dumb show", as firing the guns would have surely destroyed other shipping and/or buildings! Urselius (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the 'exercise' sentence and added a description of Lawrence's bugle signal for boarders, and the poor calibre of the bugler. Urselius (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~" as could exist in a state of war" -- this phrase seems a bit odd to me. Could they be more closely matched if they were at peace?~~
Is it possible to link "Boston lighthouse"--is this it? Also, it seems like Lighthouse should be capitalized here as a specific lighthouse.

The proper name - an archaism I imagine - seems to be the 'Boston Light', this should be capitalised.

"Captain Broke, at the head of not more that [sic?] twenty men, stepped from the rail of the waist-hammock netting to the muzzle of the after-carronade of the Chesapeake, and sprang from thence upon her quarterdeck." -- include the speaker of this block quotation.

I checked and this isn't an attributable quote by a witness, just what the Victorian historian had written - a good description I'll just modernise the phrasing a little.

the article appears to alternate between the spellings "main-deck" and "maindeck". I'm not sure of the British standard, but this should be made consistent.

Done.

"Broke never again commanded a ship; his head wound from a cutlass stroke, which had exposed the brain, had been pronounced fatal by the ship's surgeon, though he survived it." -- it's odd to connect these-- did the surgeon's mistaken pronouncement end Broke's career? Or did he have lingering effects? Or had he just had enough?
"In ratio terms " -- this phrase could be clearer. Perhaps "In per capita terms"? Or "In terms of total percentage of a ship's crew killed or wounded"?

Reworded.

~~In the captions, it's probably best to write out the RN/USN abbreviations. I have to admit my first thought in seeing "Captain Broke, RN" was "surely he wasn't a registered nurse...".~~

Done.

I think that's it for my first readthrough. This is a fascinating bit of history, well written and researched. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The article was quite well structured and had some good details before I started editing it, but it had some important omissions and didn't make a logically flowing story. Urselius (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Coming along well; only a few points of the above still need to be addressed. Two minor points raised by the new edits:

"This was a game employing roughly similar thrusts and parries as were used with cutlass, but as it was played with wooden sticks with wicker hand guards; hits, although painful, were not often dangerous. It soon developed quickness of eye and wrist." -- Is the addition of the semicolon correct here? (It seems wrong grammatically to me, but if it's in the source, so be it.) Also, the closing quotation mark appears to have been deleted.

I'm having difficulties finding any reference to singlestick and Broke - singlestick fighting dates back to the 1780s, if not earlier, therefore was definitely not a Broke innovation. We may have to delete that passage. I have a section of Padfield on cutlass and smallarms training that may be a replacement. Urselius (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with its being deleted if you can't confirm it in the Padfield. It's interesting, but not essential to the topic, and a mention of smallarms training actually seems more relevant. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did eventually find it, and another ref for the use of singlestick - Broke didn't devise it though.

The references to Shea & Watts (just added by another user) seem to lack a full citation to link to. It appears to be this book; could you or the other editor add this to the bibliography? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Checklist

Looks like everything above has been addressed except for adding the Shea & Watts bibliographic citation. I'll start the checklist below to see if there's anything else needed.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear; spotchecks of Brown & White and Borneman show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

Unless I'm misreading, Borneman claims that Lawrence and Broke personally battled, and that Broke hacked Lawrence's arm with a cutlass, almost severing it.[2] Do other sources mention this? Is Borneman just on some sort of flight of fancy here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lawrence was mortally wounded by a smallarms shot, before the British boarded. Broke certainly was in the thick of the fighting but this sounds like mere embroidery. Broke would have used a sword rather than cutlass, he is shown in a full-length portrait with a straight-bladed "1805 type" naval officer's sword. The print of Broke leading the boarding is also wrong, he didn't wear a cocked hat, he wore a 'round hat' - something like a top hat with a low crown. There are more factual images of the fighting in existence, but they are not on wikimedia commons. Urselius (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right then--this one looks to me good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]