Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.

The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• Prose as a whole is probably around 6/10. The article is good enough for GA, but will probably suffer ar FAC or A class because of this problem. I have outlined some problems below.
• The article veers between giving Royal Navy ships HMS designations and not. The standard form is to use the HMS when the ship is first mentioned (i.e. when it is linked to) and then subsequently only using the ships name. However this is done, the article must be consistent.

 Done using formatted templates.

• "Some aspects of his life were controversial during his lifetime and after. He began an affair" - use a colon at "after:"

 Done

• Addition - "Numerous monuments, such as Nelson's Column have been created in his memory and his legacy remains highly influential"

 Done

• "survey a passage in the Arctic, by which India could be reached, the fabled Northwest Passage" - try instead "survey a passage in the Arctic, by which it was hoped that India could be reached: the fabled Northwest Passage".

 Done

• "By 1800 Nelson's commander on the Carcass, Skeffington Lutwidge, began to circulate a story that while the ship had been trapped in the ice, Nelson had seen and pursued a polar bear, before he was ordered to return to the ship. In 1809, Lutwidge retold that Nelson and a companion had given chase to the bear and on being questioned why, Nelson replied "I wished, Sir, to get the skin for my father."" - a troublesome couple of sentences. Firstly, what is historical opinion on the veracity of this story? Secondly "retold" isn't actually a word - you either mean "recalled" as in remembered, or that Lutwidge changed his story. Thirdly, given (as I mention below) how much has had to be cut from this article due to size considerations, how important is this possibly apocryphyl event? Could it be better described in a footnote?

 Done removed for now, it could possibly go back in a footnote later. See my comment on the talkpage for how this incident is viewed. Retold is a word I believe (retold), but came in in a later copyedit. Since its gone now it isn't an issue.

I don't think I'd ever seen that word before! Sorry.

• "and used his position to help Nelson's rapid advance" - This is an example of a recurring problem in this article. I know you mean that Suckling used his influence to help Nelson gain promotion, but to the average reader that is probably not obvious from the wording. This article needs to be clearer in the way it illustrates facts from Nelson's life.

reworded

• "The outbreak of the American War of Independence presented opportunities for Nelson to distinguish himself" - explain how, otherwise this is a peacock term.

 Done removed that mention, which is a holdover from before the article was rewritten. Focussed it instead on the Worcester's capture of prizes, which is where Nelson distinguished himself.

• "had fought their way to main square" - the main square.

 Done

• "Nelson fully aware of the extent of his failure and the adverse affect his amputated arm could have on his career." - do you mean that he was contemplating these things during this period?

Reworded

• "The remaining French ships attempted to escape and the battle was won" - sentance is irrelevant, this is covered in the following paragraph.

 Done

• "He and the Hamiltons sailed on the Foudroyant in April 1800, and it was on this voyage that their illegitimate daughter Horatia was probably conceived" - It was Emma and Nelson's child, so say so: "on this voyage that Emma and Nelson's illegitimate daughter". Also say where they sailed from and give some indication of their destination, as you seem to be indicating that they sailed home, except they didn't.

 Done

• "retired to Britain where he stayed with his friends, Sir William and Lady Hamilton." - William Hamilton shouldn't be linked here and this is a little disingenous - we already know that Nelson and Emma had an illegitimate child!

Delinked, I'm not entirely clear what you mean here, is your objection to the term 'friend', since Nelson and Emma were obviously more than that? I've removed the word 'friend', can you let me know if that's what you intended.

Exactly that.

• "and someone who understood the human condition" - what?

 Done reworded

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• See the instructions below regarding citations, some of your online citations seem to be lacking relevant information (or possibly the information is laid out in a strange way.

I've replaced a few of the internet citations, those that are left seem to formatted ok, can you point out any that are still wrong?

Looks fine to me.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• "where he made several lifelong friends" - Name some of them, otherwise this point is irrelevant. If they don't have articles, then explain who they were.

 Done removed this, an editor who writes about the Levett family/name added this in in order to link to a Levett Hanson, who wrote Nelson a letter in the 1800s. There are many many people floating on the periphery of Nelson's life that would merit a mention before this chap.

• "Nelson was despatched to serve aboard the West Indiamen of the firm of Hibbert, Purrier and Horton" - clarify that this work was aboard a merchant ship.

 Done

• "Seahorse was attacked by two enemy ketches" - were these Marathra ketches? I've not heard of this incident (and I know the Nelson story pretty well). It might be good to state their origin rather than simply "enemy".

 Done Yes, ketches under Hyder Ali.

• Can we have an example of the criticism he recieved for his handling of the Neapolitan situation?

Do you mean in the form of a quote?

Yes, perhaps one from Charles Fox as described in the assessment section.

 Done

• The preparation section of the Battle of Trafalgar is confused, tey to clarify the sequence of events a bit more.

I've reworked it a bit, can you be more specific about where the confusion is?

I'll do a copyedit of the section and see if I can show you what the problem was.

• There is no mention of Nelson's tactics at Trafalgar, one of his most brillant tactical battles (second perhaps to the Nile). Something is needed on his decision to attack the French obliquely with two divisions, designed to divide the enemy and destroy them piecemeal.

working on this, though of course Nelson seems to have initially intended to deploy three divisions.

Expanded

• Expand the legacy section a bit further to make a more developed paragraph.

working on this

Expanded

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• All paintings should have the name of the artist and the date (if known) as part of the caption.

Year and painter added where known. Is the current situation ok?

It'll do for now, although I strongly recommend trying to find the remaining information before FAC.

I've found a bit more, replaced some images with replacements with clearer provenance. The remaining images could be replaced with others without much difficulty if it this deemed an issue at higher reviews.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• "duties with the Italian states. He participated in the Battle of Cape St Vincent" - would read better as "duties with the Italian states. In 1797 he participated in the Battle of Cape St Vincent". On the same note, the following paragraph could start "Shortly after the Battle of Cape St Vincent, Nelson took part in the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife"

Note on comprehensiveness

Although I didn't see anything specific that was missing from this article and it is perfectly fine for a GA, Nelson is one of those people from British history about whom an enormous amount has and can be written. I noticed that a number of sections that could be longer were trimmed, almost certainly to save space within the article. This is fine, but these sections can (and eventually should), be branched off into seperate "daughter" articles as has been done with (for example) John McCain. I have listed the most noticable ones below.

• Early life, childhood and early naval career (probably up to 1773)
• Career in the West Indies in the American War of Independence
• Campaign against French and Italian ports in 1793-1796
• (As you say below) Death and final hours
• His funeral (a massive state occassion with a huge body of material written about it)

There are some areas that can be reduced, I'll see what I can do about starting some daughter articles though I'd rather wait to see how the length is viewed more widely before doing anything more. Benea (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to worry you! This is a comment about future possibilities. Nothing here is required for GA review and may well not be needed for FAC and similar. Its more some ideas for the future than anything else and was intended to provoke discussion, not to demand changes. I also wasn't suggesting that anything should be reduced: I was saying that some sections which could be longer have already been reduced (or written in summary form) to save space (which with an article like this is totally appropriate). My suggested daughter articles above are a suggestion of how wikipedia can both include that level of detail while retaining a good summary article (which this is).--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, with you now! I was rather hoping that the basic level of detail could be retained as it is, though I certainly agree with you that there is a lot that can be added if daughter articles were worked up. I've been planning to write a comprehensive 'death of Nelson' article, to cover all the aspects of that event, and deal with misconceptions over his last words, tapping the admiral, etc, but I would have thought that the current level on the wounding and death in the article is appropriate given its significance. I'm currently working on moving some of the detail on the fight with the Ca Ira into the Naval Battle of Genoa (1795) article, and reducing its discussion in the Nelson article. It was significant, but perhaps does not need a blow by blow account in Nelson's biography. Hopefully as long as the prose stays on topic, it shouldn't be too much of an issue at A/FAC. Benea (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

===Citations===

The internet inline citations used in this article seem to be improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Has this been fixed?

Additional comments

I doing quite an extensive copyedit but there are one or two things I'd like you to clarify if you can.

• "Keith came to Leghorn in person to demand an explanation, and refused to be moved by the Queen's pleas to allow her to be conveyed in a British ship." - Not fully clear as the Queen had already been conveyed to Leghorn. Do you mean conveyed back to Sicily?
• "and informed him that a number of enemy ships had surrendered." - I think this is the best place to insert information about the conclusion of the battle, as that is lacking below. You need to have something that resolves the battle's outcome as at the moment it isn't mentioned directly.
• "Vice-Admiral Dmitry Senyavin's passing Russian squadron" - what were they passing?

Summary

Thats it for now. Well done on this article, it is a prodigious amount of information and seems well put together and researched. The prose is a problem, and although I will pass it for GA once the above are dealt with, this article will struggle without a couple of determined copyedits. If you are happy with it, I will do one once this article is ready to pass for GA, and then I recommend making a plea at the Military History Wikiproject, where I'm sure you will find some willing volunteers. It is also clear that although I think you've done a good job with balancing the level of detail and the many many contrasting viewpoints that will affect an article like this, there will need to be some tinkering before the balance is perfect and daughter article may need to be developed to deal with this problem. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right I think I'm ready to pass this when the above sections that you are working on are complete. I would like to do that copyedit in the near future unless you have any objections, but otherwise its a solid piece of work, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made further tweaks and fixes, your opinion on them is welcomed. No objections to you copyediting it from me, the more kinks that can be worked out before A/FAC reviews the better. Benea (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the copyedit and will now pass the article. In summing up, I think you have done excellent work with this article and I am impressed at the level of detail. However, the article does need at least one (and probably several) further copyedits before it is ready for FAC. In addition, I notice that some sections of the article rely very heavily on just ne or two sources: for an article of this importance, more sources will be needed and I recommend spreading the citations around to fully demonstrate that a range of sources have been consulted on these sections (I'm sure they have, you just need to show it more clearly). I've left one or two additional comments above, but there is no further impediment to this article becoming a GA. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)