Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [1].

Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A typical naval battle from the age of sail. It was of some importance at the time, but seems to have been largely escaped detailed scholarly scrutiny. Which means that the article is short, but that I believe that it contains pretty much all there is to be said about the battle. Fresh from GAN I believe that this meets the FAC criteria, but stand ready to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added.
  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed.
  • File:Henri_Francois_Des_Herbiers_de_l_Etenduere.jpeg needs a US tag
Fixed.
  • File:Gravure_francaise_sur_combat_naval_1747_(cropped).jpeg needs a US tag and more details on the original source - it appears the credit line is for the reproduction?
Is the statement on the original "Published ... 1781" not sufficient? (Bottom left.)
  • File:Trois_vaisseaux_francais_captures_a_la_bataille_du_cap_finisterre_oct_1747.jpg: where was this first published?
Is the statement on the original "{Published ... 1751" not sufficient? (Bottom right corner.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, all addressed, but a couple of queries I would value your opinion on. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For both of those statements... to be honest even after you've pointed them out, I can't read them! Can you quote them in full? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Trois vaisseaux francais captures a la bataille du cap finisterre oct 1747.jpg" reads "Published according to Act of Parliament [June 1 of] 1751". {Square brackets indicates that the resolution is poor enough that I am partially guessing as to the text.]
"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 L Etanduere.jpeg": to be frank, it is at the limit of what I can make out. I can strain and see what I want to, but the bits I can be sure about are "[unclear word] per [unclear word] 1 1751". But note that the agency which sells prints of exhibits on behalf of the French national museums attributes it to 1751 - [2].
Hi Nikkimaria. I can make out one, but am struggling with the other - not helped by my rusty French. (My usual translator is on holiday.) Is what I have above sufficient, or will I have to delete one or both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just go by what the museums say here? For the first image, the Royal Greenwich Museum says that it was made January 29th 1751.[3] For the second image, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux-Grand Palais dates it to 1781.[4] It also claims the image resolution is 4471 x 7024px, which if it could be opened at that resolution should mean the text would be legible. The bottom right text of that image says 'Gravé par Hubert'. Perhaps Hubert-François Gravelot? François Hubert. The style is very much like some his works that can be seen here. I can suggest that the bottom left tells us who made the design ['Dessine'], but I cannot, as yet, make out who that might be beyond 'Gra...t'. As I write this, Eureka. Look at this one, Dessine par Graincourt ; Gravé par Hubert' and the date is 1780, a year earlier. That is Antoine Graincourt. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just an added note that I've mistaken Gravelot for another François Hubert.[5] My bad. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging in use relies on publication date rather than creation date - if a site gives only "date" it's hard to tell whether it was or was not published at that time. If the image itself says it was published at that time then it's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 (cropped).jpeg" regretfully removed, which resolves the outstanding issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Splendid stuff. Crisp, clear and highly readable.

Thank you Tim. I do find these smaller topics a refreshing change of pace.

A few minor prose quibbles:

  • Lead
  • "Rear-admiral Edward Hawke" – in our WP article, and more importantly in the OED – there is no hyphen in "rear admiral" – same for later hyphenated rears.
I doubt it not. But in 1747 it was. Hawke would have been scandalised to have been referred to as a "rear admiral" and would have had the miscreant swabbing decks. If they were lucky. Obviously this is reflected in the sources. It is the normal convention (I believe) to refer to people by the ranks and titles they held at the time, parentasising explanations as necessary. Although 'rear-admiral (rear admiral)' seemed unnecessary!
I see "Rear Admiral Ogle" and "Rear Admiral Haddock" in the government journal The London Gazette 29 March–1 April 1740, but in the same paper's report of the battle (26 October 1747) the commanding officer is "Rear-Admiral Hawke". Applying your precept, with which I agree, you need to capitalise both bits of "Rear-Admiral" if using the contemporary title. I've had a swift rummage in the archives and all the London papers from around that date capitalise both bits, and the majority use the hyphen. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, caught! I cannot explain why I have used the contemporary hyphen, also used in modern sources, but not the second upper case initial, also used in the modern sources. Strange how our habitual usages trip us up. Thank you for being alert. Done. (I note that I have done this in one of the cations! I am officially an idiot.)
Speaking as a fellow idiot, I should say there are a lot of us about, but we do some good nonetheless. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The War of the Austrian Succession (1740 – 1748)" – unspaced en-dashes rather than spaced?
Arrrgh!
  • "anticipating they would likely be lost" – if this article is meant to be in BrE, the Americanism "would likely" ought to be amended to "would probably"
I keep doing that!
  • "provide significant supplies" – significant? what did they signify?
Does the OED not have a meaning of "Having a noticeable or major effect"? (Source: Wiktionary) [Not done. Further discussion invited.]
Plain Words on significant: 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, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' In 'A significant number of Government supporters abstained', 'There was no significant loss of power when the engine was tested with lower-octane fuel', this question can clearly be answered; but the writers of the following had no such significance in mind:
  • Even after this ... reduction the size of our labour force in (a particular factory) will remain significantly larger than it was a year ago. (Appreciably)
  • A significantly higher level of expenditure must be expected on libraries etc. (Considerably)
  • After the low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings during the fourth quarter there was a significant upturn in January. (Marked)
In the last example the upturn (or increase) might, it is true, have been significant; but the context shows that it was not, and no one is going to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who writes of a low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if necessary gains in Europe could be exchanged" – I'd be inclined to put a comma before "gains"
Done.
  • "The British tried to …taking advantage of its naval superiority" – plural-v-singular clash
Oops.
  • Prelude
  • "Hawke was tasked …Hawke was given detailed orders" – perhaps just "he" the second time?
Done.
  • Battle
  • "The French were sighted by the British squadron eight days after sailing, off Cape Finisterre, early on the morning of 14 October" – ambiguous: perhaps something on the lines of "Eight days after sailing, the French were sighted by the British squadron off Cape Finisterre early on the morning of 14 October."
Done.
  • "which had sailed … which they were rated" – perhaps a "that" for one of the two?
I have deleted the second "which".
  • "each of them had their mobility restricted" – singular-v-plural clash. Perhaps "had its mobility…"?
I would have used 'her', but I have decided to avoid the howls of outrage.
  • "due to damage to their rigging" – In AmE "due to" is accepted 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.
Interesting. Selecting a volume at random finds the venerable Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption using the term 51 times in this sense in just the third volume of his magisterial history of the Hundred Years' War. But only 28 in the fourth. May I suggest that in this, possibly unique, case your source may be a tad behind common usage?
Jonathan Sumption, with his charming views on the value of the life of a woman with cancer and his dismissal of our anti-Covid measures as "collective hysteria and governmental folly", is not a man I'd be inclined to emulate. The current (2015) edition of Fowler acknowledges that in the 21st century this use of "due to" is widely seen, but reminds readers of Fowler's comment that it is the practice of the illiterate. The Guardian's style guide gives the traditional view that it should only be used when it is the complement of the verb 'to be', and could be replaced by 'caused by'; "otherwise, use 'owing to' or 'because of'." – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not like you to tackle the man rather than the ball Tim. (You can probably imagine my views on Sumption's opinions in general, but I have almost always found his expression of them clear, logical and insightful.) It was the first hefty e-volume to hand written by a respected (or perhaps not) academic historian.. Regardless, while I tend to taking Fowler as strongly indicative rather than definitive, if the Grudian Style Guide is with it then I surrender. "due to" replaced and I shall endevour, probably with incomplete success, to avoid it in future.
Hmm, while not wholly convinced, you raise more than enough doubts for me to substitute it in this case and to make a mental note to be more cautious with it in future.
Probably a losing battle, I fear, against the American take-over of the Queen's English, but one fights the good fight. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath
  • "were not self sufficient" – the OED hyphenates self-sufficient
Hyphenated.
  • "France recovered her colonial possessions which had been captured by the British in return for withdrawing" – I think you need to fence the subordinate clause off with a comma before "which" and another before "in".
It seems to me that one is only required after "British, which I have inserted. But I stand ready to corrected.
  • Afterthought – if the colonial possessions we're talking about were not all France's colonies, I think perhaps "that" (commaless) rather than "which" is needed – restrictive-v-non-restricted.
Do you mean not all in the sense of some being Spain's, or not being the totality of France's?
The sentence means either that the British had captured all France's colonial possessions but gave them all back in return for the withdrawal, or that the British had captured some of France's colonial possessions but gave them back in return for the withdrawal. It is the difference between a non-restrictive and a restrictive clause:
  • France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.
  • France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.
But for clarity it might in any case be better to rejig the sentence:
  • In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British.
  • In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British.

(There are some ardent opponents of the passive voice who would insist that "which/that had been captured by the British" should be "which/that the British had captured, but it isn't a point on which I feel strongly.) – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may - ok, it most certainly is - due to (oops!) my pig ignorance of the finer nuances of English grammar but those look synonymistic (sic) to me. So I have gone with "In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British" feeling that the important distinction you wish to be drawn may be better grasped by a reader with this. If I have merely further mangled the prose, please don't hesitate to say.
You have it spot-on now, in my view. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in again once you've had the chance to ponder the above. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, I believe that I have mentioned before that I feel better once you have gone through any of my articles. All of you comments addressed, a few even with less than full agreement! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with you is nearly always fruitless, but it is so educational I feel unmotivated to stop. Thank you. And I should employ you as a research assistant! Fancy a collaboration? I have had my eye on Battle of Quiberon Bay for a couple of years now. The French language version is excellent, while ours is not. (The "Battle" section is entirely based on a 1907 source, except for some 1867 intrusions.) To a large extent this FAC and Battle of Lagos, which you also reviewed, are practice runs for Quiberon Bay.
Any hoo, your further points now addressed. I await continuing broadsides. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No further broadsides. As a proud holder of the Queen's Award for Cowardice, I do not write articles on military or naval history, but I am very happy to add my support for the elevation of this excellent article to FA, and I look forward to seeing it enliven our front page. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support

[edit]
  • "while Its colonies were left to fend for themselves" - Lowercase its
Done.
  • Can it be briefly said in a sentence or two what the War of the Austrian Succession was fought over?
I had thought that the name of the war may be sufficient, but now unpacked a little further.
  • I think it would be helpful to indicate where exactly Cape Finisterre was
This turned out to be surprisingly difficult. See what you think of the revised first sentence of the "Battle " section.
I think that works. (I would have personally guessed that Cape Finisterre was the location, without that clarification). 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "252 merchantmen and others" - I'm assuming #251 was the Indiaman and #252 was Castor. But Castor is only directly mentioned in the listing of ships at the end. Should she be mentioned in the prose as well, as the 252nd ship?
Good point. You assume correctly. (Separately listing one Indiaman and a single frigate, neither of which were engaged, in the infobox seemed a bit much.) Done.
  • Sources and images look fine
I am assuming that this doesn't constitue a full source review? Or does it?
No, but I will do one. Hog Farm Talk 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, as usual. Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for the review, the insightful comments and the kind words. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources all appear to be reliable
  • Anderson needs the location
Added.
  • page 320 here says that the battle was fought well to the north of the cape itself, is that useful?
The battle was fought here, while Cape Finisterre is here. So, yes, well to the south. But the battle isn't named after that Cape Finisterre, it was named after the sea region Finisterre, a vaguely defined area to the west of the French department Finistère, the western part of Brittany. I could give you lots more OR if you want, but the sources don't go any further.
BTW, two naval orientated RSs give a different account of why Hawke was first off Spain and then intercepted the French much further north.
  • Not finding any major sources that aren't represented.
Did you find many sources at all?
Not really. I found the item linked above, a single paragraph in a different work by Black, and some primary source papers by Hawke. Nothing that would really be useful here. Hog Farm Talk 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Hog Farm, you are having a busy day on Wikipedia. See above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr rnddude

[edit]
  • Any particular reason for Fougueux to be the only ship of the line not to be either blue or red linked?
My sloppiness. Now red linked/
  • "In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing from her gains in the Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium)" - Repetition in italics, I'd drop the first instance and remove the comma.
Done.
  • "... when the French King would prove reluctant ..." - Nitpick, but you could just use simple past tense here.
True. Done.
  • "Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen, only seven were captured" - Pretty sure this is a comma splice
Second comma removed.
  • "The balance continued to the West Indies, but, warned of their approach, the British Leeward Islands Squadron under Commodore George Pocock was able to intercept many of them in late 1747 and early 1748" - Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what the meaning of this sentence is. What does it mean for the balance to continue to the West Indies and whom are the British intercepting? I assume 'balance of the war', but does that mean that the West Indies was having more impact than the campaign in mainland Europe?
"of the convoy" added to clarify what the subject of "the balance" was. (As the previous sentence was "Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen only 7 were captured." I had assumed it clear that "the balance " referred to the other 243 ships.)
  • "... varied from 74 to 50 ..." vs "... variously rated for 56 to 80 guns ..." - Why the switch from high-low to low-high?
Ah. Good spot. Standarised.
  • "... which made it difficult for the French navy to provide substantial quantities of supplies or to militarily support to French colonies" - Either 'or to militarily support French colonies' or, more preferably, 'or military support to French colonies'.
Oops. Sorted.
Cheers for that. I am off line for few days. I’ll get to it as soon as I’m back. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mr rnddude. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that must be Content and Castor. Perhaps, for clarity, '250 merchantmen and 2 others'. Because I read it to mean 252 merchantmen and others rather than as 252 merchantmen and others. If the emphasis makes clear what I'm saying. Also, since the 2 others are part of the escort fleet, should they not be with the 8 ships of the line, i.e. 8 ships of the line and 2 others. Rather than as part of the merchant ships. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. I was trying to be concise for the infobox, but clearly at the expense of clarity. Now spelt out.
Thanks again Mr rnddude, good additional point. Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: three supports - two of them non-MilHist - source and image reviews and ten days since nomination. Can I launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: Two weeks in now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't deliberately ignoring although, yes, two weeks in works better -- sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Done.
Good point, done.
Added.
Not especially. It is a normal English word which seems to succinctly describe what happened. Would you prefer a rephrase?
I have expanded to "withdrawing from her territorial gains in the Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium)." Does that help?
Prose
  • Not a prose thing, but the article title is annoying me a bit. Why is it "Second Battle", not "second battle", and why has it also got a date disambiguation? the other battles are all just "Battle of Cape Finisterre" with the year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I never pay any attention to titles. I suspect the date is because there are battles of Cape Finisterre in 1747, 1761 and 1805. But none of them are second battles. I will change it to "Second battle of Cape Finisterre" as soon as this FAC closes.
I don't see it and it is not usual, although not unknown, so it is now.
Cus TRM wanted a contemporaneous link and I couldn't be bothered to argue WP:OVERLINK with them. Happy to delete them or change to Spain etc, which seems an insult to a reader's intelligence to me, or whatever is preferred. But The Rambling Man would need to agree.
It's a navy which happens to belong to France. As in Gog's article.
Why?[!] I don't attribute each sentence of prose in line. That's what cites are for. Why should I do the equivalent for images. If a reader wants more detail they can click on the image. I could go with "Image of a painting of Rear-Admiral Edward Hawke", but a) it reads badly to me b) it seems pointless, a reader can see that c) it comes across as painfully pedantic.
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, thanks for looking this over. Your comments to date are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski Reminder, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Lee Vilenski and thanks for squeezing this in when things are so busy. Responses to your latest comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: ? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. I would prefer better captions, though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee. Happy to discuss "better" captions. Once the WikiCup is over and we both have a bit more time perhaps we could debate this on the article's talk page? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • I would add (O.S.) to "14 October 1747" in the infobox.
Quite right. Done and linked.
  • For location in the infobox, could we be a tiny bit more explicit, i.e. Off Cape Finisterre, near France/Spain?
I had wondered about that, but gone for the more summary style. Expanded.
  • "A British fleet of" fleet should be in the pipe. Or else British should be linked to Kingdom of Great Britain.
Done.
  • Likewise convoy in "French convoy". Or link French to "Kingdom of France" instead.
Gone for the former.
  • "convoy of 250 merchant ships" infobox suggests 252 "merchantmen", so shouldn't we keep nomenclature and numbers consistent here?
Ah. Thank you for that. I forgot to subtract two from the total when I specified the two non-merchantmen! Fixed.
  • "fourteen ships of the line commanded" ship of the line should be linked here, not second time round in the lead.
Done.
  • "250 merchant ships, only seven " isn't MOSNUM keen on all numerals or or words for comparable values in close proximity?
It does, it does. Changed.
  • "had strategic effects, isolating" not sure "had strategic effects" is helpful or adds anything here, could just delete that and make "isolating" into "isolated"...
Fair point. I suppose I need to either expand or cut. I have gone with your suggestion.
  • I'm no expert, but by the map on the article, Austrian Netherlands appears to be more than just "modern Belgium".
Well, it is in places, and doesn't include some of modern Belgium elsewhere. And that's without getting into the whole Holy Roman Empire sovereignty issue. I can source the assertion in the article, but have changed to "approximately modern Belgium and Luxemburg".
  • "France, Spain and Prussia fighting Britain, Austria and the Dutch Republic" if these (especially Prussia and Dutch Republic) have contemporaneous articles, I would link them, especially as you then link Bavaria (only).
Done, in so far as their are such articles.
  • "the British navy" link this.
Done.
  • "French navy" ditto.
Done.
  • "In spring 1747 a " aren't seasons discouraged?
A regular query. IMO it is acceptable under MOS:SEASON for this sort of usage, but changed so as to duck the issue.
  • "commanded by Jacques-Pierre de la Jonquière" other such individuals have their ranks noted (in the lead at least).
Added.
  • "commanded by George Anson." ditto.
Added.
  • "subordinate, Admiral Peter" you've linked rear and vice but not vanilla admiral, any reason?
Assuming that it would be generally understood and cognizant of MOS:OL.
  • I would link scurvy, it's not exactly a commonplace complaint these days.
Point. Done.
  • "So recently promoted..." maybe it's an artefact of a dodgy education, but I was told to avoid starting sentences with "So..."
I can't be held responsible for your dodgy education. My understanding is that this applies when "so" is used as a conjuntion, but not when used as an adverb, as here. Of course, my education was probably even dodgier.
  • "sailed from Plymouth on" could link as many readers would not even believe that Plymouth (the original) was in southwest England.
The mind boggles. We should never have given them independence! Done.
  • What is "aggressive ... signalling"?
Good question. I am trying to boil about a chapter and a half in the standard history into half a sentence. Unpacked a little, see what you think.
  • "Admiralty" link.
Done.
  • You use unusually thrice which is quite a POV statement. In each case, who said it was "unusual"?
I dislike doing too much in line attribution, so all removed.
  • "Eight days after sailing" which side?
Good point. It also reads clumsily, so rephrased.
  • "westernmost department of" why italic? Our own article doesn't use italics.
They do when using foreign words which aren't proper nouns. See MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
  • "varied from 50 to 74, only one being rated for more than 66 guns.[20]" you say this is "on the smaller side", but what was typical for a ship of the line? Can you footnote what we'd expect?
Not really. I can follow the sources by saying that they were a bit lightly gunned for capital ships of the time, but saying what was typical would be OR. (Or, at best, synthesis.)
  • "Indiaman Content, the frigate Castor" Content is notable but Castor not? What's the difference?
I thought I had changed that. Castor now red linked.
  • "permit ... permitting" repetitive, maybe switch one for "allow(ing)"?
Done.
  • "By being able ... British were able..." repetitive prose.
Second usage rephrased.
  • "each of them had its mobility restricted because of damage to their rigging" could you say "each one's mobility was restricted after damage to their rigging"?
I could. I have.
  • "under Commodore George" link for Commodore (for consistent rank linking).
Done.
  • "able to intercept many of them " any more specific details on these interceptions?
Sadly not. Which is a shame. But several thousand merchant ships were captured by each side during the war, many several times, so they get little mention.
  • "went to the negotiating table " bit journalese.
Rephrased.
  • "the Low Countries " link.
Done.
  • "the French King proved" why not name him explicitly??
Added.
  • "French Canada" link?
Done.
  • "[note 4]:[20][22]" ugh, put [note 4] after the colon, I think our readers can handle that.
Done.
  • "(flag, John Moore)" what does flag mean here?
Changed to "flagship" and linked.

That's all I have on a quick run through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks TRM, that was just what the article needed. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Commodore is linked first time,
It wasn't, it is now.
a query over French navy, this article doesn't capitalise it, but it redirects to the article which does.
I don't capitalise British navy either. I can't help how other articles capitalise things. I am relying on the MOS's "The central point is that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources."
I imagine there's a simple explanation for why you're opting to redirect?
MOS:NOPIPE.
Well, no, if you were to use Royal Navy, you wouldn't write Royal navy. That would be simply wrong. But as French Navy isn't really even the real name, it's fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Further points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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/Second_Battle_of_Cape_Finisterre_(1747)/archive1&oldid=1054758547"