Talk:Philip Wodehouse (Royal Navy officer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 21:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one. Review to follow within a few days. —Kusma (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progress box and general comments

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-researched article about a Navy officer. Overall it reads a bit dry; we learn a lot about facts of where he served and when but very little about the main himself, his motivations or skills. Did he ever receive praise or just regular promotions? Did he receive any blame for the shipwreck? Was he a good or a bad captain? If you have anything in any of these directions in the sources, it would be helpful to add.

Despite his more-illustrious-than-most lineage, Wodehouse is by far not the most well-recorded of naval officers. A lot of the early biographers relied almost entirely on what the relations or men themselves chose to give them, so if little was provided then we're left with the bland facts. The newly added bits on Halifax have provided a little though.
Yes, that helps a lot.

On the upside, the dryness helps for an easy neutrality tick. The sources I've seen look fine; I haven't seen the Peerage sources (which are not always super reliable) as I could only find other editions online.

The ones I've used are solid as far as I know. Not to be confused with the horrendous but often used peerage.com...

Why is the image PD? (Was it ever published)?

It's taken from the sketchbook of William Innes Pocock and is held by the NMM here. I'm really rubbish at tagging images correctly, so If you've a suggestion as to what the tag should rather be I'd be greatful.
I'm not actually sure there is a correct PD tag for the image. If it has never been published before being put on that website, it could be protected by copyright for a number of years (25, 50 or 70 depending on circumstances) after publication.

I've taken advice from some other editors and apparently what the image has now (having updated it) is acceptable.
I'm not certain, but I'll accept it for the moment. You might have more trouble at FAC.

The image seems the most relevant of the ships commanded. (Most others don't have usable images either).
You could consider Intrepid or Peterel if the Cumberland image doesn't work out.
Lead is short but seems complete enough.

Overall I have a few queries but nothing major seems to stand in the way of promotion to rear-admiral of the Green. —Kusma (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: and here's your ping. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section review

Lead:

promoted to vice admiral?

Done.

Naval career:

Baron Wodehouse is a redirect; perhaps refine to the section? It is a bit of a surprise to be redirected to an article about a different title.

Done.

At an early age Wodehouse began a career in the Royal Navy couldn't really verify this in the sources (but didn't find the Debrett's one). Lieutenant at 20 means he could have joined at 18, not super young compared to, say, Nelson?

Reworded. If he joined at 18 he would have most likely never been promoted at all; most aspiring officers would have become midshipmen by the time they were 14 at the latest. Nelson, incidentally, joined when he was about 13.

I assume we know nothing between his birth and his promotion to lieutenant?

Nothing is recorded. It is possible that his service up to this point was entirely on paper, written into ship's books for seniority but not actually going to sea. Just my guess though!

I find it confusing that he was "moved to Peterel" but then needs to chase the ship to actually get there.

Reworded slightly, see if that works.

He relinquished command of Volage while still on station in around September the same year. try to simplify the sentence, and is there any reason why he did so?

Reworded. A guess would be because of illness, it being the West Indies, but the reason is not recorded.

Resistance was stationed off Weymouth for the summer, and Wodehouse then recommissioned her again in September. could you say that with less jargon? Or perhaps link Ship commissioning?

I've removed the second half of this because really it's a very minor event better-suited to the ship article (which I also wrote!). I've added why Resistance was at Weymouth instead.

Harwich Sea Fencibles: MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Could you give a two-word description of what these fencibles are?

Done.

Did Wodehouse command Cumberland until 1811?

Yes, Robert Otway took over from him and subsequently took the ship home for repairs; clarified.

What is the "Resident Commissioner, Halifax"? Did he have anything to do with the building of Admiralty House?

Added explanation of role. Wodehouse did not order or decide anything about the house (it was ordered by John Borlase Warren and championed by his successor Alexander Cochrane), but he did help build it. Thanks for putting me onto this! I've managed to add quite a chunk more, which I'm afraid means a bit more reading for you...

The end of the "Napoleonic Wars" section really isn't about the Napoleonic Wars.

Split into separate section.

The source isn't so clear that there was a painting by Field, nor does it make it so explicit that it has been lost.

Reworded.

Personal life:

Not a fan of the men having professions but no marital status and the women being "unmarried" but without any other information

Sadly that's all the background the sources give for his daughters. I realise the discrepancy and can either add the marital details of the men or remove it for the women. What would you prefer?
Easiest would be to drop the "unmarried" to make the asymmetry less grating. (As an aside, I recently came across the daughters of Andrew Planta and had a source that said something like "we don't know much about them; sources disagree about their names and birth dates". This somehow turned into Frederica Planta, Elizabeth Parish and the even more epic Eliza Stephens after some digging. At least one other sister is also notable...)

Removed unmarried. You've done some good work with those articles! The moment I drift away from military history I get rather out of my depth, the furthest I've got is Esther Acklom.

Notes:

Our articles use "Rear-Admiral of the White" and similar extra caps.

I believe I'm following the MOS in not capitalising them in that situation.

@Kusma: Hi, thanks for taking this on! I've replied to all your comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Very happy with the changes above (but there is now a slight discrepancy with Halifax service until 1819 between lead and body). Review of the new section:[reply]

The new section adds very nicely to the story, I am very happy that you added it. It does read slightly more hastily written than the rest, though, and could do with a little copyediting.
Would not use "the same year" in the first sentence of a new section, but repeat 1811.

Done.

increase in the dockyard facilities is "expansion of" better? (I'm not a native speaker so I'm often wrong about things like that).

Done.

continued on at do we need the "on"?

Removed.

File:Commissioners House, in the Naval Yard, Halifax, 1804.png is also a potentially interesting image here (but File:Admiralty House Halifax.jpg is fine).

Ooh that's a tempting one to replace it with. Going to side with Admiralty House just because it's a photograph.

This continued for several years, with the house being completed in 1819 unnecessarily wordy, "The house was completed in 1819" is enough.

Done.

transport was arranged for he and his family to return to Britain "for him"? or "so he and his family could"?

Him.

Well thought of according to whom? The sentence with Gwyn's and other people's opinion of Wodehouse could be disentangled a bit.

Removed as unnecessary, and cleaned up a little.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I think that's all in this section. —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I think I've responded to all your new comments above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes and responses, promoting. Thank you for another quality article! —Kusma (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]