Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2022 [1].

Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Richardson was a Royal Navy officer who served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, eventually reaching the rank of vice-admiral. While most of Richardson's fellow admirals gained the majority of their experience at sea, Richardson found his calling on land, managing to fight in several British Army campaigns. Richardson was also a successful naval commander when he found time to be so, commanding six warships. He continued in the navy after the end of the wars, ending his career in rather strange circumstances surrounding a diplomatic incident in China. Having created this article and then brought it through GAN and ACR, I am now putting it up for consideration here. This is my first attempt at ever doing so! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

This is an interesting and engaging article – well written and evidently (to this layman's eye) comprehensive and widely sourced. It may be a first FAC but it strikes me as a pretty good one. A few comments on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "he successfully combatted" – the OED, Fowler and Chambers all give the past tense of the verb as "combated". (There's a "combatting" later, too: the single "t" is correct for all inflected forms of the verb.)
  • Done.
  • "he personally secured the Dutch admiral" – I see from the main text that this means "captured", and it might be as well to use that word, which is clearer, I think.
  • Done.
  • "en flute" – I had to look that one up. The OED spells it as you spell it, but our Wikipedia article Frenchifies it –en flûte. I have no view on the matter and merely bring the discrepancy to your attention.
  • I'll keep it as it is unless any stronger opinions arise.
  • East Indies
  • "to convey politician Charles Allan Cathcart" – clunky false title; a "the" before "politician" is all that's needed to remedy it.
  • Done.
  • "This position never eventuated" – wonderfully circumlocutory: do you mean this didn't happen?
  • Indeed!
  • "Having stayed on on the East Indies Station" – the repeated "on" is grammatically all right but looks strange: "remained on the…" or similar might flow better.
  • Done.
  • "before he re-joined Phoenix" – superfluous hyphen: the verb is "rejoin" according to the OED and Chambers. (There's another re-join later in the text.)
  • Done.
  • English Channel and the North Sea
  • "Anglo-Russian invasion" – is "Anglo-Something" still appropriate for events after the creation of Great Britain in 1707? One still sees it used, but I wonder if it is right. I'm not sure, and won't object if you prefer to stick with it.
  • Egypt
  • "due to disease being rife –"due to" is accepted in American usage as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. Something like "because disease was rife … and poor weather hampered…" would be better, I think.
  • Done.
  • "where the brigade had eighty-five casualties" – you are a bit inconsistent in how you record numbers: "92 casualties from a crew of 866", "killing twenty-five of her crew", "The 519 Dutch soldiers", "thirty-six acres (fifteen hectares)", "600 yards from the town". I'm with you in expressing numbers in words rather than figures when reasonably practicable (though not everyone would agree with me) but there's scope for consistency.
  • My rule has always been that I write out numbers that are below three figures, unless they are in a sentence also using a larger number, as your first example does. I am not sure how I might go about fixing this but am open to any suggestions!
  • "Having come to the attention of Abercromby in both Holland and now Egypt, the general subsequently appointed Richardson" – the dangling modifier needs attention. Something on the lines of "After Richardson came to the attention of Abercromby …. the general appointed him …." would avoid the grammatical error.
  • Done.
  • Walcheren Campaign
  • "Then on 11 April they fought the Battle of the Basque Roads" – who are "they"? The only plural for it to refer back to is "three French frigates", which is plainly not what you mean.
  • Rejigged to hopefully make more sense.
  • "because of her draught" – this could do with explaining: because her draught was too what?
  • Large.
  • "commenced firing" – strangely prissy verb (what Fowler calls a "genteelism") for such a vigorous action. "Began" or "started" firing, or even "opened fire", would be stronger, I think.
  • Done.
  • Post-war service and retirement
  • "tensions deescalated on 20 February 1822" – do tensions escalate and deescalate? Perhaps "eased" might be preferable.
  • Done.
  • References
  • "It would be good to include OCLC numbers for books published before ISBNs came in. WorldCat will oblige.
  • Find that I am not the best with these. Have added what I could, but have failed with a couple.
  • "James, Wiliam (1837)" – Really Wiliam rather than William?
  • Oops!

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, I feel. I'll look in again once you've had time to consider these few points. Tim riley talk 10:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I was enormously impressed when reading through by your stern refusal to insert superfluous AmE-style commas where they are not required in the Queen's English. I felt a bit humbled, as I have given way here and there over the years to these otiose commas in my own prose. I hope you will fend off any attempts to insert these excrescences, using incendiary rockets and 24-pounder cannon as required. Tim riley talk 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Hi, thank you for your comments! I have replied to all of them. The commas (or lack of them) are most likely down to my absorbing so much British writing when researching for articles such as this. I take little credit! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One last read-through and I'll be back to − I hope − support. Tim riley talk 10:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. This readable − not to say rollicking − article is well written, appears comprehensive, is widely sourced, well proportioned and admirably illustrated. Meets all the criteria for FA in my view. I hope we shall see further FACs from this source. − Tim riley talk 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "between 1791 and 1792." Perhaps 'in 1791 and 1792.'
  • Done.
  • "given command of the en flute HMS Alligator." Could we have an in line explanation of "en flute", if only in brackets?
  • An explanation in brackets is already given in the main text, I feel having it in the lede as well might clog it up a little much?
  • "where he took command of a naval brigade". Perhaps add 'operating ashore?
  • Done.
  • "in the parish of Shap, in Westmorland". Add 'England'.
  • Done.
  • Optional: a footnote explaining that passing the exam for promotion to lieutenant and actually being promoted were different things?
  • The house is being painted right now and my books are all over the place, but I'll attempt to add a suitable note and reference later on.
  • Perhaps mention that Abercromby died at the Battle of Alexandria? Perhaps mention its outcome?
  • Done.
  • "Caesar was little engaged in the latter battle because of her large draught." The "latter battle" is Les Sables-d'Olonne, which probably isn't what you mean.
  • Fixed.
  • Yes.
  • Perhaps mention when the Napoleonic War ends?
  • Done.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, thanks for the comments! I've acted on all of them bar the examination query (for now!). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Source Review - Ykraps

[edit]
  • Until the age of fifteen Richardson was educated at the village of Bampton - Is it 'at the village' or 'in the village'?
  • ...and buried at Fort St. George, where his grave would be visited by Richardson while he served on that station in later years. - The source doesn't say Richardson visited the grave, merely that he saw the site of it (Fort St George) from the ship.
  • True. The whole part seems like a bit of artistic license from the biographer, really! I've rewritten it.
Nicely done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cathcart was already ill when he began the mission... - This is discussed on page 3 of Armstrong, not page 5. Either add a p. 3 citation after mission, or extend the cite at the end of the paragraph to pp. 3-5
  • Have added a separate p. 3 citation, p. 4 not being at all relevant.
Best option, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cathcart agreed that upon reaching China Richardson would become his aide de camp... - Perhaps change 'on reaching China' to 'on arrival in China' to avoid close paraphrasing
  • Done.
  • The captain of Alexander, Captain Thomas West, wanted to replace Richardson with his own nephew, and made it known to the other officers that this was his goal. - In the book I have access to, this is covered by pp. 21-22 not p. 22. Do you have a different book?
  • Nope, a slip from me there. Thanks for the comments so far!
It has happened so thought I'd better ask before commenting on further anomalies.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Ykraps (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not entirely sure that casualties (article) is the same as hors-de-combat (source). I may be being overly picky. Thoughts?
  • Assuming that you are talking about the Royal George figures, I believe "casualties" is a standard enough way of grouping those killed and wounded in battle.
No, I was talking about the Battle of Mandora, The article says the brigade suffered 85 casualties but the source (Armstrong p. 113) describes them as hors-de-combat. These are combatants prevented from taking part for any reason including death, wounds, those who deserted or were taken prisoner, and those who couldn't function effectively because an essential piece of equipment had been put out of action. A gun crew whose cannon has exploded or a cavalryman whose horse has been killed for example. The reason I think I'm being over picky is because the modern (though not contemporary) definition of casualty includes deserters and POWs, and I can't think of any other reason that would have stopped members of Smith's brigade from carrying on.
  • I see now, thanks. Do you think "eighty-five men hors de combat" would be acceptable, or perhaps the same translated into English?
The best I could come up with was 'put out of action' or 'incapacitated' (as in made incapable). If you don't like either of those, then quoting the source verbatim would be okay.
  • Went with incapacitated.
  • Is it worth mentioning that (according to Armstrong (p. 117)) Richardson also had a combat role at Alexandria, "...headed the tars in their attacks on the enemy"?
  • Done.
  • He subsequently fought at the Battle of Suriname on 5 May 1804... ...was confirmed on 27 September of the same year. This is quite a long passage before a citation. Perhaps add a couple of interim ones?
  • Done.
  • He was not unemployed for long... ....Allemand safely entering Toulon. Ditto
  • Done.
  • On 24 August of the same year... ...congratulated Richardson on the action. Ditto
  • Done.
  • The sentence beginning "Richardson returned to England with Hood in March 1805..." is cited to Armstrong, Byrne and Winfield. My copy of Winfield has HMS Romney on page 116 which doesn't seem to be relevant to Richardson. Is this an error or a different version of the book?
  • I think it must be a different book version. Mine has Centaur on p. 116.
That's on p. 37 in mine but I don't doubt you. As I said, it's happened before.
  • "In February 1808 Strachan's squadron was sent to chase a different French force, this time of Rear-Admiral Zacharie Allemand, in the Mediterranean Sea". This is dealt with on p. 155 of Armstrong's book not p. 150 as the citation currently says
  • Changed. Had not realised I'd made such a mess with some of these citations. Can only thank you for your assistance!
  • Add a source that says Allemand safely entered Toulon; neither Armstrong nor Marshall verify this. If you need help with this let me know. Also, the date he arrived there would be good.
Sorry, I was looking at O'Byrne, not Marshall. Still, a date would be good, if you have one.
  • Yep, 6 February.
  • "While on half pay Richardson was rewarded for his services on 4 July 1815 with his appointment as a Companion of the Order of the Bath; the Napoleonic Wars ended that November". Can we have a source that says the Napoleonic wars ended in November 1815 and that Richardson was on half pay? Just for us pedants.
  • Trimmed sentence to more accurately represent the source, which included removing the half-pay comment entirely. While I think it is almost impossible that Richardson wasn't on half-pay at this point, the source does not explicitly say it. Added ref for the date.
I agree, he almost certainly was on half pay but without a reference, it could be construed as OR.
  • Re fn 80. Volume 35 of the Gentleman's Magazine comprises several issues so an issue number is required. If you don't know it, you might find it here. [[2]]
  • Done. Struggled with the citation formatting but hopefully what I've done works.
It's one of the reasons I shy away from templates. Does Syrett and DiNardo also say Richardson died at 83? The reason I'm fussing is that Armstrong says 81 ("...in his 82nd year").
  • Syrett and DiNardo don't provide that kind of information - they only very occasionally provide dates of death at all. The ref is there for his rank at death. I think mathematically it makes more sense for Richardson to have been 81, but am unsure whether "that's what it adds up to" is a good enough reason for saying that The Gentleman's Magazine is wrong and Armstrong right?
What about leaving the main text as is but adding a footnote about how sources differ?
  • Done.
  • "...but never married, living there instead with retainers including the coxswain who had served with him at Alexandria". Neither reference mentions marriage or living with retainers. Armstrong (p. 222) says his coxswain ...spent some months of the year with his old commander but this (in my opinion) is visiting rather than living with. Also, this time could have been spent away from the house.
  • Here we see a (hopefully rare!) example of me getting overly flowery in my writing as I get closer to finishing an article. Removed mention of the coxswain entirely, being trivia more than anything in my opinion.
  • I can't see how the two references given corroborate footnote 4. Lavery explains the role of non-line of battle ships in signal repeating and Clowes shows Circe to windward of the fleet but she is not the only vessel pictured there. Both O 'Byrne and Marshall, used to reference the main text, explicitly state that Circe was one of the repeaters.
  • Well this is a little awkward considering I've since written HMS Beaulieu, which was another repeater at the battle..! Was a very cack-handed attempt to explain the role of Circe and repeating frigates in the battle, which is hopefully rectified.

More to come. I like working in managable chunks like this but others prefer to have the whole lot in one go. Do you have a preference?--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to continue on like this, but not averse to larger chunks if you want to change your process! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking but should be finished over the weekend.--Ykraps (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...and joined instead the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Alexander on 28 December, serving in Admiral Lord Howe's Channel Fleet" Is that Lord Howe's or Lord Bridport's Channel Fleet. --Ykraps (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I was thrown by the Marshall source that talks about the flagship of Alex Hood. Hood was one of Howe's admirals at the time. Never-the-less, neither source says Howe commanded the Channel Fleet. Can we drop one in? --Ykraps (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Support - I am happy that the sourcing meets FA standards: reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked most for accuracy and close paraphrasing. A fraction of those, I have included as examples below. Those sources I don’t have access to, I will AGF.--Ykraps (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy and Paraphrasing Checks

Article: Soon after this Vestal was sent to China to convey the politician Charles Allan Cathcart so that he could open diplomatic channels with the Chinese

Sources: He shortly afterwards proceeded on an embassy to China... (O'Byrne) ...our officer [Strachan] obtained the command of the Vestal, of 28 guns, and was ordered to convey the brother of the present Lord Cathcart on an embassy to the Emperor of China. (Marshall 1823d)

Article: Cathcart was already ill when he began the mission and his health declined further while on board Vestal; Richardson was charged with reading to him and keeping him company, and Cathcart agreed that upon reaching China Richardson would become his aide de camp

Sources: ...the Hon Colonel Cathcart was appointed ambassador, although he was dangerously ill at the time. (Armstrong p. 3) Charles Richardson, who had profited by a good classical education, became a great favorite with the sick man to whom he read... (Armstrong p. 5) ...the colonel [Cathcart] promised to appoint him [Richardson] as his aide-de-camp, on reaching China (Armstrong p. 5)

Article: The captain of Alexander, Captain Thomas West, wanted to replace Richardson with his own nephew, and made it known to the other officers that this was his goal

Sources: He [West] took an immediate dislike to Richardson... ...and he made no scruple of telling the officers that he meant to get rid of him… …in order to make room for a nephew (Armstrong pp. 21-22)

Article: He took a boat to another ship of the line in the fleet, the 100-gun HMS Royal George.

Sources: Richardson hailed a boat... ...to put him on board the admiral's ship ... ...the Royal George, 100 (Armstrong p. 22)

Article: Royal George was the flagship of Vice-Admiral Sir Alexander Hood, and Hood took Richardson on as a master's mate in that vessel after Strachan provided a good report on him to the admiral.

Sources: [Richardson] referred to his former gallant commander [Strachan], who warmly espoused his cause (Armstrong p. 22) Sir Alexander Hood, after sifting the affair to the bottom , made the injured youth [Richardson] midshipman and master's mate (Armstrong p. 22)

Article: Richardson fought in Royal George at the action of 29 May 1794 and then at the subsequent Glorious First of June in both of which the ship was heavily engaged, having 92 casualties from a crew of 866

Sources: ...in the spring of 1794, to the Royal George... ...he served in the battles of May 29 and June 1, 1794 (Marshall 1825) During the partial action of May 29, 1794, and the decisive battle of June 1st in the same year... ...the Royal George was exposed to an incessant and fierce cannonade, by which her foremast, with the fore and main topmasts, were shot away, 20 of her men killed, and 72 wounded. (Marshall 1823 a) Royal George (ship) 2286 (burden in tons) 866 (men and boys) 15 (killed May 29) 23 (wounded May 29) 5 (killed June 1) 49 (wounded June 1) 20 (total killed) 72 (total wounded) (James (from table on p. 387))

Article: Until the mutiny was quashed Circe was one of only three vessels still serving in the North Sea Fleet, making signals to each other to pretend that they had more ships than they did

Sources: These three vessels [Adamant, Circe and Venerable] were in a state of mutiny but unable to gain possession of the ships... While in this perilous situation, by constantly making signals as if there were ships in the offing, he [Duncan] deceived the Dutch into the belief that his whole squadron was at hand (Armstrong p. 22)

Article: They served in a number of rivers in cooperation with Major-General Sir Robert Abercromby's army combating Tipu Sultan. Richardson was employed in this role for several months before he rejoined Phoenix

Sources: While on the East India station Mr. Richardson was for several months employed in the boats in co-operating, up different rivers, with the army under Sir Robt. Abercrombie in its operations against Tippoo Saib. (O'Byrne) …where he saw much active service during the war with Tippoo Saib, being employed for several months in boats sent up the different rivers to co-operate with the Malabar army under Sir Robert Abercrombie. (Marshall 1825)

Article: Richardson's action impressed Duncan, who in January 1798 took him to serve on his flagship, the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Venerable. Richardson then transferred with Duncan to the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Kent on 6 March, becoming his flag lieutenant there

Sources: Succeeding in his object he had the honour of presenting him in person to the British Commander-in-Chief; who in consequence received him on promotion in Jan. 1798 on board his flagship the Venerable 74, and made him, 6 March following, his Signal-Lieutenant in the Kent 74 (O'Byrne) Lord Duncan, as mark of his approbation, applied for him [Richardson] to be appointed one of his own lieutenants. In consequence, he removed on the 27th of January 1798, on promotion, into the Venerable; but, on the 6th of March following, the admiral, taking command of the Kent, 74, Mr Richardson became flag-lieutenant of that ship (Armstrong p. 85)

Article: Richardson served as second in command to Captain Sir Sidney Smith in the naval brigade landed to assist the army, and he then fought at the Battle of Mandora on 13 March, where the brigade had eighty-five men incapacitated.

Sources: On the 13th March 1801... ...sailors under Sir Sydney Smith and Lieutenant Richardson, emulated the troops with which they were associated. But the brigade was sadly reduced, as 85 were either killed or placed hors-de-combat in the fight... (Armstrong p. 113)

Article: For his services in Egypt Richardson was awarded the gold medal second class of the Order of the Crescent by the Ottoman Empire.

Sources: Order of the Crescent, Egypt 1801, Gold Medal second class, in gold frame glazed, awarded to Vice Admiral Charles Richardson, K.C.B (Glendining and Co)

...received from the sultan (in conjunction with other officers who had distinguished themselves in Egypt) the order of the Crescent... (Armstrong p. 121)

Article: Richardson's rank as a commander was made permanent on 9 October 1802 and he continued in command of Alligator, serving during the Peace of Amiens in the Firth of Forth

Sources: In April 1803, Commander Richardson returned from the Mediterranean and was stationed for a short period in the firth of Forth. The Alligator being a handsome frigate... (Armstrong p. 127) ...he was nominated Acting-Commander of the Aligator 28, armée en flûte. While in that ship, to which he was confirmed 9 Oct. 1802... (O'Byrne)

Article: Richardson returned to England with Hood in March 1805 and soon after left the ship, going on leave to Westmorland where he purchased a small cottage and thirty-six acres (fifteen hectares) of land and visited his relative, Sir Francis

Sources: On 6 July in that year he was in consequence invested by Sir Samuel Hood with the command of the Centaur 74, the ship bearing his broad pendant, an act which the Admiralty confirmed 27 Sept. ensuing. He returned to England in March, 1805... (O'Byrne) ...another and more sensible reason for visiting Westmorland... ...a prettily situated cottage overlooking Hawes Water... ...to purchase this little property... ...his plan of purchasing the estate of 36 acres... ...on obtaining early possession... ...At the approach of Winter, he left Westmorland and proceeded to pay a long-promised visit to his relative. Sir Francis Wood, residing at Hemsworth in Yorkshire (Armstrong pp. 139-142)

Article: Richardson served in Leander on the station [East Indies] and while there on 29 July 1821 he left Leander to command the 44-gun frigate HMS Topaze, whose captain had died on station

Sources: Captain Richardson’s next appointment was, July 29, 1819, to the Leander of 60 guns, fitting for the flag of Sir Henry Blackwood, commander-in-chief on the East India station. On the demise of Captain John R. Lumley, in July, 1821, he consented to take the command of the Topaze frigate (Marshall 1825) ...to the Leander 60, bearing the flag of Hon. Sir H. Blackwood, and Topaze 46, both on the East India station (O'Byrne)

Article: fn 3. While both British frigates attacked Résolue, she only fired at Phoenix.

Sources: The Phoenix and Perseverance... ....and both were concerned in the action with La Resolu, a 12-pounder frigate, though she only fired at Phoenix. (Marshall 1824)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charles_Richardson_(Royal_Navy_officer)/archive1&oldid=1086570524"