Talk:HMS Hussar (1799)

HMS Hussar (1799) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 27, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Hussar (1799)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 05:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one, comments to follow over the weekend. Zawed (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting to this, I got food poisoning at the end of last weekend and took a while to recover. Anyhoo, to my comments:

No problem at all! Hope you're feeling better..

Hussar was a 38-gun, 18-pounder, fifth-rate...: is it normal to mention the gun here? I don't seem to recall it being used in this way in other RN sailing ship articles.

Not sure if it's normal but it's something I try and do. See for example HMS Beaulieu, HMS Jason (1800), and HMS Swallow (1745). A 12-pounder frigate would be very different to an 18-pounder one, so I think stipulating which it is early on is useful.

Surveyor of the Navy Sir William Rule, submitted on 19 April 1796.: seems like something missing here, what was submitted on that date?

The design for the class was. Clarified.

Amazon class of 1794.: the redlink on Amazon class has the disambig 1795, not 1794?

Believe the redlink is set up to stipulate when the first ship of the class was launched, while Winfield differentiates between the Amazon classes based on the date of their designs. 1794 is the latter, which I've clarified.

The length dimension is given along the upper deck while that of the infobox is along the gun deck. From the Deck (ship) article, it seems these are two distinct decks.

Fixed.

...with the final cost totalling £29,884.: for sake of clarity, I suggest "with the final cost of construction totalling £29,884."

Done.

...was because the ships were...: so that the word ships is only used once in the sentence, suggest "was because they were"

Done.

Hussar is defined as a 38-gun ship. I may be having a dense moment (still not firing on all four-cylinders after the food poisoning) but how is that calculated because I can't get 38 from the armament section of the description or the infobox.

Nominally the class was of 38 guns, and that is how they are recorded in the large majority of sources. However, the Royal Navy is weird, and in this period they didn't actually count many of the guns on a vessel in this number. For example, for a long while after carronades were introduced they were completely ignored in the number of guns. Winfield states on one line that the class is "38 guns". Four lines later he lays out that if one counts all of them, the class had 46 guns! But if one counts only the long guns originally planned for the class (28 x 18-pounders, 8 x 9-pounders, 2 x 9 pounders) then one gets 38. Which is how the Royal Navy likes to count...

In the service section add year of commission since this is a distinct part of the article from the previous section.

Done.

Perhaps you have already looked, but note 3 mentions a painting of Hussar exists, could an image be online?

I actually have a low quality picture of the painting in a book, but the image hasn't been found online yet and would be difficult to reproduce from my book. I've made some enquiries and a very kind editor will be having a look for the painting next time they visit the National Maritime Museum where it is kept.

...and a woman were drowned.: wouldn't it be unusual for a woman to be on board an RN ship at this time?

Not as rare as one might think. On the official establishment senior officers and warrant officers were often allowed to have their wives live on board with them. When anchored in a home port (as Hussar pretty much was at the time of the incident) other women would go on board to sell goods or to ply more saucy trades. I believe there is more than one example of women pretending to be men to serve on ships in the period too.

While sailing on this errand Hussar was wrecked: to avoid using "While" to start two successive sentences, suggest "In the course of this errand Hussar was wrecked

Done.

Image tag OK, no dupe links detected. Earwig tool looks OK too, the closest appears to arise as a consequence of the Winfield source being listed in the references.

That's my comments done. Zawed (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Hi, thanks for the comments. I have replied to them all. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks all in order. Passing as GA and I urge you to enter this and your other recently promoted articles into this month's article writing contest. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have now done so. Thanks again. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]