Contents

Talk:HMS Alceste (1806)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Alceste (1806) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

HMS Alceste (1806) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 12, 2014 Good article nominee Listed October 29, 2016 Featured article candidate Promoted September 2, 2016 Peer review Reviewed Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 23, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that HMS Alceste was wrecked, then later burned, by Malayan pirates? Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Shipwrecks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: edit history watch purge To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Alceste (1806)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose): b(MoS):

   I'd link carronade in the text, along with beam

   Done--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd use first names on introduction of an individual

   Done (I think) Allemand, Cochrane, Amherst. Anymore?--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The link to corvette is repeated in the following paragraph

   Done removed.--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Watch your commas - I've seen a few that were unnecessary

   Okay. I'm a bit old school so tend to insert the optional commas too which in turn sometimes creates a need for semi-colons.--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, I've been there - if you read some of the articles I wrote back in 2008-2009, you'd see copy-editors like Dank beating me over the head until I put the commas away. I still probably overuse semi-colons, but what can I say, I just like them! Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Be careful with semi-colons, some instead should be commas

   Okay fair point.--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   " attacked a Spanish convoy of Rota" - should that be off Rota?

   Done typo fix--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Added a {{who}} tag that needs to be addressed.

   Done I have followed the example of Action of 29 November 1811, itself a GA, and given Henderson's name (no article to link to I'm afraid); or if you think it better, I can simply remove the sentence. Although I vaguely remember William James making the same point, I can't find any reference to it in his six volume tome.--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it's fine now that it's attributed. It is an interesting theory (I took a counterfactual history seminar under Geoffrey Parker while I was in grad school, and we had to come up with a counterfactual scenario and explore the possible outcomes; this seems like it would have been an excellent one to consider). Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Does the War of 1812 section really need to be split off? From what I understand, the "War of 1812" framing is an Americanism (the British having been at war for quite some time by 1812)

   Hmmm. I'm not sure. You are right of course, the War of 1812 was just the North American theatre of a much bigger war and Europeans tend to think of it as a bit of a side-show. However, this encyclopaedia is read by an awful lot of Americans and Canadians for whom this event was important, and it does provide a point of reference for them. Having said all that, if it's a deal breaker, I can add it to the previous section. It is rather short after all.--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   My thought is, this is an article about a British topic, so it would make the most sense to structure the article from a British perspective. Us Yanks (and Canadians) can figure it out ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Done If you're not offended, then I guess it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not particularly thrilled with using Wade-Giles over Pinyin, especially since there's a mix of the two transliterations

   I'm not sure I understand you. I believe you are referring to Chinese characters but I can't see where they are in the article. If there are any, they are either historic or have been copied inadvertently. Perhaps you could expand on your point. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Having now read the Wikipedia articles, Wade-Giles and Pinyin, I think I understand. You are talking about the difference between Leo Tong and Liaodong. I just copied the example in which ever source I happened to be referring to at the time. I have changed the former for the latter, which I think is Pinyin. Are there any others?--Ykraps (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, that's what I was talking about - I fixed a couple of others and asked for help with Che-a-tow Bay over at WP:CHINA. Hopefully someone there can lend us a hand. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   There is an online version of the book here [[1]], page 230, which might give some more clues.--Ykraps (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Excellent - I just checked the coordinates in the book and it's right at Jiaozhou Bay, which confirms what Kusma said on the WP:CHINA discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The Qing ruler at the time of the mission was the Jiaqing Emperor - probably worth linking him specifically.

   Done Emperor linked to Jiaqing Emperor.--Ykraps (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   "into the China Sea" - presumably the South China Sea?

   Done Yep.--Ykraps (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   "His Britannic Majesty" seems a bit much - better to just say "King George III"

   Done--Ykraps (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   "you're government must not blame you" - surely Napoleon did not use "you're" when he meant "your".

   Done You're not wrong there! Don't know how that slipped by me.--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   It's always awfully embarrassing when you do something silly like that - unfortunately I've had more than my fair share ;)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(references): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Sir Murray Maxwell.jpg - needs a US copyright tag. And can we crop the file to just his portrait? The subtitles create quite a bit of white space and don't really add anything.

   Same for File:Alceste at Bogue.jpg

   These things are a bit beyond my capabilities so respectfully request that you allow me a little time to enlist some help. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I have requested help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#GA Review--Ykraps (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Done all sorted thanks to User:Hohum.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Made several tweaks here and there, let me know if you disagree with any of them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Alright, I'm happy to pass the article now. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Great news! And thanks for taking the trouble to review the article.--Ykraps (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion for the further improvement of this article Patrick O'Brian's novels The Thirteen Gun Salute and The Nutmeg of Consolation appear to draw heavily on the events around the loss of Alceste. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the Alceste was in Pensacola in December 1814, but was moored off Pensacola. There had been a diplomatic incident in Pensacola a month previous. If I recall what I have recently seen, this should be amended, sources permitting. Keith H99 (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this for a different vessel, but remain convinced that owing to the incident of the prior month, the British were very much persona non grata in Pensacola, and would not have been able to enter the harbour.

Despatch from Cochrane to the Admiralty dated 16 December 1814, whilst aboard the Armide moored off Cat Island

HAVING arrived at the Anchorage off Chande-

leur island on the 8h instant, Captain Gordon,

of the Seahorse (whose ship, with the Armide and

Sophie, I had sent on from off Pensacola to the

anchorage [Ship Island]'

Reproduced in the London Gazette, Publication date:9 March 1815, Issue:16991, Page:446 Keith H99 (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]