Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Roebuck (1774)/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) 6 September 2019 [1].

HMS Roebuck (1774)

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a two-deck fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy, built specifically to operate in the shallow waters around America, where the British ships-of-the-line couldn't go. Roebuck served throughout the American Revolutionary War and took part in notable operations against Philadelphia and Charleston. Presumably because she was old and her type wasn't required during the French wars, she was after converted for use as a hospital and troop ship, taking part in the captures of Martinique and St Lucia in 1794. When Britain declared war on the Batavian Republic, Roebuck was part of the fleet sent to capture the Dutch Navy in the Vlieter roadstead. She served as guardship towards the end of her career and was eventually broken up in 1811.

The article achieved GA in April and received a peer review in June. The article had another polish, when it went through a comprehensive A-class review earlier this month. I look forward to hearing ideas for further improvement. Ykraps (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and given the improvements made during that review, I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't used fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you correctly, I've fixed this issue by using the upright scaling parameter in the article[[[2]] and in the table[[3]] but I'm struggling to make this work for the infobox image. I've asked for help on my talk page and hopefully all will be resolved before the review draws to a close. Many thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out
No formatting issues
Sources appear to be comprehensive and to meet the requisite quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

This looks an excellent article and very interesting. A few comments:

In the construction section, Roebuck is described as the prototype of her class and there are a couple of mentions of other ships of the class. It may be worth mentioning how many vessels were in the class, perhaps as a note.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The captain's journal is listed as a source and cited several times - however, in these sections, his surname is spelt Hammond as opposed to Hamond in the body of the article itself.
Sources differ as to the number of ems. For the sake of consistency within the article, I had to make a choice. It is unfortunate that Hammond is so prominently featured in the reference section but most sources use the single em spelling.--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, Sir Andrew Hamond, 1st Baronet, also uses a single em.--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you have cited by the title Chronicle rather than the authors e.g. Jones et al? It stands out to me since you cite by author for Clowes.
My reasoning was that the Naval Chronicle is a collection of writings and not all are written by those three authors. Some are official documents, dispatches and letters. The publication also featured guest writers. However, part of Clowes book was written by A. T. Mahan, so I guess it's okay. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my comments done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for your suggestions. Do you have any further comments, either about the article or in relation to my replies? Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

flying the flags of Vice-Admiral Richard Rodney Bligh amd then Rear-Admiral You mean "and"?
Good spot! Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
where a portion of their guns were also removed You mean "was"?
Collective nouns are a bit complicated in British English. I think 'were' is correct in this case. A portion from a single ship would be 'was' but a portion from each of several ships is 'were'. However, I have rewritten to avoid this unnecessary complication.--Ykraps (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "were" too in this context because it sounds better. However, I wouldn't write it because it states "a portion" which is not plural but singular. But anyway it is changed. Cheers.

That's anything that I've got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything else so I'll change it to support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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