Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Lagos/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2020 [1].

---

Battle of Lagos

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A Franco-Anglo naval battle from the age of sail. One where Clausewitz's friction was working overtime and few things went right for either side. I am attempting to break away from late-medieval articles, so greatly expanded this article in October and put it through ACR. I am hoping that it is now ready for FAC, so haul up your jolly rogers and I'll stand by to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by RetiredDuke

Hello Gog, great to see this article here. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I wonder if the fact that this battle occurred in neutral Portuguese territorial waters had a significant impact on the future course of the Seven Years War and consequences to Portugal, since the article seems a bit brief in that regard. The following sources mention the breach in Portugal's neutrality as a reason that the country became involved in war with Spain and France later on:

• "The Boscawen incident, which caused so much trouble and eventually in 1762 was to be one of the pretexts used by Spain to declare war on Portugal..."
• "Britain ultimately had to pay a price for Boscawen again disregarding the rules of neutrality... Portugal became entangled against her wishes in the diplomacy of the Franco-British war and eventually became a reluctant participant in the war itself..."
• "... in the memorial by which... the crowns of France and Spain ordered Portugal to declare against England. The grounds of that memorial - ... the disregard of Portuguese neutrality..."; "recalling the deliberate violation of her neutrality by the fleet under Boscawen... Portugal would not be allowed to continue a neutrality she could not enforce... The allies declared war and invaded Portugal." - A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783

Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi RetiredDuke, thanks for that insightful comment and the helpful sources. I am away from my paper sources at the moment, so could you give me a couple of days to be reunited with them before I come back to you on this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi RetiredDuke. Apologies for the prolonged delay in responding - it kept slipping my mind. Researching this a bit, there seems to be agreement that Boscawen's action was not a reason for France and Spain declaring war on Portugal, but was one of the pretexts they cited when they decided to do so. So it does seem reasonable to make some mention of it. How would you feel about 'Three years later, the Spanish and French governments used this breach of neutrality as one of their pretexts for declaring war on and invading Portugal.', immediately after "Boscawen's violation of Portuguese neutrality was fully supported by his government, which placated the Portuguese by persuading them that it was an inadvertent result of Boscawen's general chase order."? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries Gog the Mild, glad you could look into it. I had no great expansion on my mind when I made that query, just curious if a person with all the right sources on hand could point to any kind of scholarly consensus or agreement about that connection, without veering into the realm of WP:OR. Your proposed sentence is clear and concise and ties up that loose end nicely.

Taking now on the article as a whole, I found it to be well-written, engaging and well-researched. The next query comes from someone who does not know much about British military history (or French for that matter), so apologies if I'm being obtuse in any way.

- Could the idea behind this sentence be slightly expanded upon? "Meanwhile, Britain's war effort up to early 1756 had been a failure." - I do not know enough about the Seven Years' War to immediately tell what could be considered a failure to Britain in this context. (Does it mean that Britain was unable to help Prussia during their invasion? Or unable to repel the French offensive?) Whereas the French shortcomings were described in more detail just before.

It's a small point that does not affect my support for this article's promotion. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi RetiredDuke. If you are indicating that you support the article's promotion, I would be grateful if you could clarify that by amending your section header. Regarding the history of Britain's war effort up to early 1756, it is, as is often the case, one of those which is a bit of a slippery slope, with no obvious cut-off point. I could mention: the Braddock Expedition's defeat and the Siege of Fort William Henry in America; Britain's abandonment by her long term ally Austria; Britain's naval defeat at the Battle of Minorca which led to her executing her own losing admiral and the fall of her Mediterranean stronghold, Minorca; the calamitous defeat at the Battle of Hastenbeck in their European possession, Hanover; the British government falling apart after 6 months and it taking three months to patch together a new coalition; the fall of Calcutta in India, followed by the ignominy of the Black Hole of Calcutta; a crippling shortage of sailors; and let's not even consider the economy. You get the idea. I was and am reluctant to cherry pick a couple of these, and even on review prefer a summary-style it "had been a failure". But I'm not wedded to either so short a summary nor those precise words, if you have suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. Well I read the article carefully and that was the only instance where I became a bit lost, since I'm not familiar with what Britain had been doing up to that point and what exactly was meant by "failure". I take the point that it would be rather difficult to summarize all of those individual setbacks. Support given above. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: Ah, but now you have me thinking. (Always a dangerous thing.) How about if I added 'with setbacks in Europe, North America, India and at sea'? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Sounds good, I think. It gives an idea of the extent of Britain's war effort and that things were not going favourably for them in general. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I enjoyed this article. A splendid read and highly informative. A few minor points on drafting:

• Lead

• I wonder if it might be an idea to give a pronunciation guide for "Lagos"? It's something like la-goosh, not what the eye might expect. You can copy and paste from the Lagos, Portugal article if you agree.

Can I ask why we would want to give the Portuguese pronunciation of a battle between the British and the French, neither of whom would pronounce it in the Portuguese fashion? It would be easy enough for me to do, but there is no evidence to suggest that 18th-century Englishmen pronounced it differently than thee or me would. And if they did, I am writing for a 20th-century English speaking audience, who I would hope would pronounce it Lay-goss.

Well, I think a 20th- (or even 21st-) century English speaking audience would simply be wrong to call it Lay-goss, but it's your prose, and I'm not going to make this any sort of sticking point. I'd be interested to see if any other reviewer has views. Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Background

• "Secretary of State for the Navy, Nicolas René Berryer… secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister), William Pitt" – inconsistent capitalisation.

Mea culpa.

• "significant handicap in a combat situation" – two points here: "significant" and "situation". As to the former, what did it signify? See Plain Words: "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable…". And I struggle to see how "in a combat situation" differs from "in combat".

Both changed.

• "acted as a strong disincentive to service" – just "were" rather than "acted as" perhaps?

Fair point. Done.

• Prelude
  • "refurbishment was underway" – according to the OED "under way" is two words

Ah. "underway" is a noun. Ah well.

• Battle

• "Boscawen ordered that there be no return fire" – have I missed an earlier explanation of why he might have done so? Seems odd, and one wonders why he did.

No, you haven't. Yes, it is. I am pretty sure why he did so, but as the sources simply report the fact I cannot OR in what is almost certainly the explanation. It seems necessary to report the fact, even if it leaves a reader dissatisfied.

Gosh! But fair enough. (You might share your OR thoughts here, though, out of interest.) Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The first broadside, fired as one discharge, from cold guns, double shotted, loaded exactly and at leisure was deadlier than subsequent ones; and captains would attempt to save it for a close range strike against their primary targets. Boscawen seems to have taken this to obsessive lengths. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for that. Well worth knowing, however unprovable. Tim riley talk 22:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• "The naval historian Nicholas Tracey claims…" – I'd be cautious with "claims". It carries overtones of disbelief. "Maintains", "suggests", "observes" and many other more neutral options might be safer.

Changed to "suggests". Although the Wiktionary definition seems to fit well "A new statement of something one believes to be the truth, usually when the statement has yet to be verified or without valid evidence provided."

• Aftermath

• "The three captured French ships went on to serve in the British navy as HMS Centaur, Modeste and Temeraire." – I did just wonder if that was the Temeraire, the one famously portrayed by Turner. I see from here that it wasn't, and as I imagine the name will ring bells in very many readers' heads it might be wise to add an explanatory footnote to the effect that this Temeraire was followed in the Royal Navy by a second in 1793 which is Turner's one.

Done. (I rarely receive requests to inform readers what is not the case.)

• Sources

• "A mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBNs prompts at least one frequent FAC reviewer to demand 13-digits throughout. The necessary gizmo is here, if wanted.

I prefer to adhere to Wikipedia policy and use the ISBN which is actually printed in the volume I consult.

• "Dull, Jonathan R. (2009). The Age Of The Ship Of The Line" – is this really the capitalisation used in the title?

Oh dear. How tactful. It doesn't matter. All titles should be in Wikipedian title case. Changed

• Barnsley" – is in South Yorkshire in one source and just Yorkshire in another.

Well spotted. Standardised.

On to FA! Tim riley talk 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. That was remarkably swift, and as thorough as usual. Much appreciated. Your points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. The article seems to me comprehensive and balanced. It is well and widely referenced and nicely illustrated, and is a cracking read. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim for your kind words, and for the support. By best guess, or a potted version of, as to the withholding of fire is above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Boscawen image

Done.

• Why use the Namur image for the infobox rather than the complete Battle of Lagos from which it is derived? The article after all is about the battle, not the ship

Because the image of the full battle appeared to me to be an indecipherable mess at infobox image size. However, replaced as suggested.

• File:Vaisseau_le_Redoutable_74_canons_a_la_bataille_de_Minorque_1756.jpg: when/where was this first published?

According to the Bibliothèque nationale de France sometime before 1825, by an unknown artist. The Bibliothèque nationale de France also states that it is in the public domain.

Hm, I'm looking at the source link provided but don't see 1825 listed - am I missing it, or are you looking at a different link? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Click on the large i in the top left and scroll down to "Relation : Appartient à : [Recueil. Collection Michel Hennin. Estampes relatives à l'Histoire de France. Tome 172, Pièces comprises entre les numéros 331 et 14303, période : 1643-1824]". Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for picking up this review so promptly. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Factotem - Support on sourcing

General

• The dates are somewhat confusing. The infobox states 18–19 August, but the lead begins the third paragraph with the statement, "The British caught up with the French on the 17th and fierce fighting ensued...". I think you could also usefully restate the date in the first sentence of the Battle section.

For some reason I slipped a day with several dates in the infobox. Many thanks for picking up this embarrassment.

Date restated. But not in the first sentence - this would be clumsy without recasting the paragraph. See what you think.

Unsourced statements:

• Infobox states 10 British frigates, which is the quantity listed in the OOB, but the article states 12 (Prelude section)

10 took part in the battle, as stated in the infobox and restated and sourced in the OoB. The Prelude states "he also had 12 frigates" in the context of "In May 1759 Edward Boscawen took command of the British fleet in the Mediterranean". Ie, two of the frigates in the fleet were not present at the battle. The article states that "He ordered the first two of his frigates to be ready for sea to patrol to the east". La Clue evaded them and was in the Atlantic when spotted by Gibraltar, so I assume that this accounts for the discrepancy. But no source explicitly states this, hence the two unaccounted for.

• Infobox states 193 British wounded, but article states 196 (Aftermath section)

Apologies. That's me not adequately checking the figure in the infobox when I picked up the article. Corrected.

• Two of the three footnotes are unsourced. The last one explains only a convention used in the article and is fine. The second footnote, about The Fighting Temeraire painting is, IMO, not necessary.

I added the footnote about the painting at the request of reviewer Tim riley, doing so on my phone over Christmas, and squinting at it I messed up the formatting. The reference was there, but not showing in the text. If you are suggesting that the article would be the better for not having the The Fighting Temeraire footnote I would agree. But Tim is usually a good judge of these things and I don't feel that strongly about it. Perhaps the two of you could reach consensus?

I'm not comfortable with having any unsourced statements of fact, especially at FA. For me, that footnote is an unnecessary detail; removing it does not in any way degrade our understanding of the subject of the article. Anyone who is curious is just a click away from the ship's own article, from which it is just another click to learn that it is not the same ship as featured in the painting. Finally, if we're going to disambiguate this name, why not any of the others that were also used on multiple different ships? I would prefer the footnote to go. Let's see if Tim wishes to defend it. Factotem (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley:? The note is at least sourced now, but I still think it's an unnecessary detail that does not belong. I am, however, reviewing on sourcing only, so it does not affect my opinion on that. Factotem (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Turner's picture was voted Britain's favourite painting in a poll organised by the BBC a few years ago. I think so many readers, in Britain at any rate, will see the name "Temeraire" and wonder if this is the Temeraire that it would be helpful to explain that it isn't. But if there's a consensus agin me I shall withdraw gracefully. Tim riley talk 10:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Technical checks:

• Ref #52 (Troude 1867, p. 373, 385.) p->pp

D'oh! Fixed.

• You use an ISBN10 ref for Kemp's The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea when all other ISBNs in the Sources section are ISBN13. The Worldcat entry for this work gives an ISBN13 of 978-0192820846. This is a nitpick I've seen in previous source reviews. For myself, I'm not fussed.
• Worldcat's listing of editions of Longmate's Island Fortress: The Defence of Great Britain, 1603–1945 does not list any as being published by Harper Collins. The ISBN link you provide indicates that the edition you used was published by Grafton. Can you check please?

It is Grafton of course. As there is no source from Harper Collins, so it can't even be a cut and paste error, I am unsure how I messed that up.

• The ISBN provided for McLynn's 1759: the Year Britain Became Master of the World links to a 2008 edition published by Vantage, according to Worldcat, rather than the 2005 edition published by Pimlico as stated in the Sources section. Can you check please?

This goes from bad to worse. I was actually holding the volume in question as I read that. (I had just checked the number of wounded.) Turning it over, it says "Vintage" (not Vantage) clearly enough on the spine. On the title page, part way down, it states "Pimlico edition 2005" by way of publishing history and I unhappily took that as referring to this edition. Corrected.

• Mahon's surname is repeated in the Sources section

Corrected.

• There appears to be two different titles for Kléber's work. You list Imperial Island: A History of Britain and Its Empire, 1660–1837, but this Worldcat entry indicates that the ISBN ref you provide relates to a work titled Imperial island : a history of Britain and its empire, 1688-1837. Note that Worldcat lists both titles, but does not provide an ISBN ref for the 1660 version that I looked up. Can you check please?

That one drove me half mad. I believe that WorldCat is in error. One can just about make out that the cover illustration states 1660. The WorldCat blurb starts "This is a lively, new textbook for US students on British history from the Stuart Restoration of 1660 ... " And I finally tracked down a Google Books title page with a title and ISBN matching that I have provided - here.

• A search for ISBN 0713884118, provided for Rodger's The Command of the Ocean gives no results in both Worldcat and Gbooks

My typo - it should be 0713994118. Corrected. (I have previously copied and pasted this into other articles which I shall have to find and change.)

• The ISSN ref you provide for Willis's The Battle of Lagos, 1759 appears to refer to the journal rather than the specific article. Can you add the DOI ref please (doi=10.1353/jmh.0.0366 should do it)?

Added.

• The Worldcat listing for Rif's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates indicates Seaforth Publishing to be based in St. Paul, Minnesota, not Barnsley, South Yorkshire, as stated in the Sources section

Yesss. But. I am happy to bow to your superior knowledge, but this title page states that it was published in GB by Seaforth, an imprint of P&S of Barnsley; and is merely distributed in the USA, and that by MBI.

External link checker: no issues reported

More to come Factotem (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality of sources:

• I'm always a little concerned when I see very old sources used. In this case, 10 out of 100 cites are to 19th-century works, but they are all accompanied by another cite or relate to the OOB, so I'm not concerned that such ancient sources are being relied upon to any inappropriate degree;

Me too. But they were the only ones I could find with that sort of detail, and like you I reassured myself that I was only using them unsupported for straight forwardly factual information.

• Had to research MacDonald and Jane's a little (and can you check the listing in the sourcing section? It appears to be misspelt with an accent on the s rather than the possessive 's' Worldcat and Gbooks list it as), but all publishers appear to be of appropriate quality;

I didn't realise that it was possible to get a French-style accent by mistyping an apostrophe. Well spotted. Corrected.

• Sixty percent of the cites are to three works focussed on the subject or time period by authors with solid academic credentials, so no issues there, other than to point out that Sam Willis can be linked.

I read his article and thought that I had. I have not done too well with this bibliography.

I was surprised at the lack of other detailed examinations of this battle. One of only three large naval battles in the Seven Years' War. I assume that Byng's disgrace three years earlier and Quiberon Bay three months after Lagos hog the limelight.

In short, no issues with the reliability of the sources used. Factotem (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Still more to come. Factotem (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness:

• I searched Google Books for "Battle of Lagos" but found only the sources used in the article, the advice to consult Sam Willis's work for a detailed narrative of the battle, and nothing to suggest the article is not based on a full survey of all relevant sources.
• A similar search on JSTOR did not reveal anything more concerning than Rémy (according to the article bibliography) Monaque is Rémi (according to the JSTOR listing) Monaque

Yes. It seems clear enough - [file:///C:/Users/Simon/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/naval-leadership-in-the-atlantic-world.%20(1).pdf]. Just me goofing again.

In other words, all good on the comprehensiveness front as far as I can ascertain. Factotem (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel no need to complete any spot checks against the source. If you address the general, unsourced and technical issues identified above I see no reason not to support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Factotem. I have some idea of the time and effort involved in a thorough review like that and I much appreciate it. All of your points above addressed, at least one with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Interesting account of a battle I had not heard of. A few points:

• "It left port amidst great confusion, with most ships not having their refurbishments completed, and many delayed and sailing in a second squadron." Possibly "sailed" for "sailing"?

I don't think that this works following "and many delayed". Tim, would you mind offering your Solomonic grammatical judgement on this? (PS Or I could rephrase as 'and many were delayed and sailed in a second squadron'?)

What about "with many delayed and sailing in a second squadron"?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns, and both were having serious problems financing the war." I might cut the first comma.

The idea idea is to section out, by a pair of commas, "in either the land or sea campaigns". If you don't think that it works, I could recast the sentence?

Let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• " From June 1757 it came under the control of the assertive new secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister)," I realise there is something of a campaign to lower case things, but this seems lower than I'd expect.

I may be missing the point (I often do) but having just checked, the casing seems to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. I would not wish to defend the casing used, other than to note that I understood a compliance with the MOS in this respect to be necessary to pass FAC.

• "as HMS Centaur,[53] Modeste[54] and Temeraire.[note 2][43]|group=note}}" some formatting issue here.

Whoops. Thank you. Fixed.

Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, thanks for stopping by and thanks for the support even before I have addressed your comments. All had me thinking, but I am inclined not to go with your first three. See what you think of my reasoning above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Support by Kablammo

The article is clear and concise, without unnecessary detail.

You may wish to add Mahan's judgment on the action's importance: "The destruction or dispersal of the Toulon fleet stopped the invasion of England", at page 300 of the cited book. Kablammo (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kablammo Thanks for the read through, the copy edit and the support. Re Mahan, I am inclined not to: his opinion is rather dated; and more recent and more specialist treatments explicitly state that La Clue's fleet was not aimed at supporting the invasion and its destruction had little effect one way or another. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support by CPA-5

I couldn't find anything eles - all of my comments are addressed in the ARC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.