Wikipedia:Peer review/John Benbow/archive1

John Benbow

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
  • Sorted SGGH ^ping! 12:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to improve the article - and up its rating. Prior to my edits it was a start, and I want to check my progress thus far.

Thanks, SGGH ^ping! 22:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment: You have cited the "Brave Benbow" ditty to Trevelyan's book. Does he not give the first verse, whch you have omitted? Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns out there was a bit of it omitted. I was not aware, having not added the original content to the article and not checked it. I have added the entire song and cited it to a more approriate source, a book on social music in England. Now I just need to work out how to have it two verses abrest so it is not so long and does not occupy as much space. Anyone know how? Got it now. SGGH ^ping! 10:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Any other thoughts from anyone? SGGH ^ping! 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 19 articles in the PR backlog, including this one. 17 have been there longer. Someone will get to it within a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I only briefly looked at the article and it seems to be under-linked at time. "a fleet in the Downs" - The Downs? Revd. Joseph Nightingale - the Joseph Nightingale ? etc. NVO (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have linked Nightingale, and the Downs was already linked. Thanks for the spot, I shall look out for others. SGGH ^ping! 20:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch, I shall try to PR a few myself when I get some free time tomorrow. SGGH ^ping! 11:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks to be about GA already, and not that far from FA. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD, probably to three paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to include all section headers in the lead in some way, but the word admiral does not seem to be in the lead, nor does the Merchant period in his life (to mane two examples).
• This seems to be very nicely referenced, but this needs a ref - for example in the Return to the Navy section Benbow was highly regarded as a specialist in both navigation and pilotage and his evidence given in July 1690 to the preliminary investigation strongly favoured his old patron, Torrington. He did not however testify in the Earl's court-martial in December that year. seems like it needs a ref.
• There are also several places that need to provide context to the reader better. Here are some examples (not an exhaustive list):
  • I would add the year of publication to A biography of The Gentleman's Magazine, however, records in a short biography entitled Life and Exploits of Admiral Benbow by D. Parkes that he was born in 1650,[8]... as is done in the rest of this section with sources.
  • It would probably be worth adding something to clarify why the family's association with Charles I was a problem for the young Benbow, a sentence or phrase or link to English Interregnum somehow?
  • Is it worth mentioning he was 15 years old when he entered the Navy?
  • In the Merchant trading section, I think it would be useful to include a sentence or two on how the Navy used to operate (readers unfamiliar with naval history or more familiar with the career navies of today may be confused here by being "paid off")
  • Is there a link for master attendant - maybe Wiktionary? I also think I would link master of the fleet on first use.
  • I would also make it clearer who the enemy was when he returned to the Navy - assume it was France as the attacked St Malo.
  • I would explain what the various colors mean (admiral of the red or white or whatever)
  • The marriage section needs to be expanded if possible - there is an earlier passing reference to a son John whom I assume is their first child, but it does not even say the name of the first child.
  • The 'Brave Benbow' section needs to make clearer which engagement is meant in Controversy slowly began to develop over the events of the engagement. It is also a bit odd as the first sentence is on controversy, the second on efforts to rehabilitate the disgraced captains, and then we skip 141 years later and have a memorial erected (which should probably say explicitly it was made for Benbow). Were there no other memorials between his death and burial and this?
• A few rough spots in the language - Unclear sentence She had been engaged by HMS Adventure, under the command of Captain William Booth, and when the Nonsuch arrived on the scene the Golden Horse surrendered.[14]... I think I would replace She here with a more specific reference to the Algerine warship as the antecedent for she is initially unclear.
• Is the repetition of "in silver" a mistake in A Moorish skull-cap, "coated with varnish and set in silver in silver" and bearing the inscription...? I had to read this a few times to understand it, but am not sure if it would read better the first time throug if the "in silver" were not repeated.
• I agree that the song would look better as two columns, if possible

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall address those in due course. SGGH ^ping! 16:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101 Hi, I think this is a very nice article and certainly not far from GA standard.

• I don't think the reference to Saint-Malo as being an anti-piracy operation is correct - It seems to have been an operation as part of the Nine Years War and therefore it was privateers rather than pirates (which is an important distinction). There is also no need to link "siege" in the article at all, it is a common enough word not to require it.
  • Done
• I've noticed an issue with ranks: when part of a persons title they should be capitalised (Admiral John Benbow), when in text they should not (John Benbow was an admiral). You also need consistency in introductions, either always give the rank or don't (e.g. you have "Captain Edward Acton" but "HMS Ruby under George Walton". I would prefer the ranks are always given when a new person is introduced but either way it must be consistent). Its also better not to link the rank either individually or as part of the person's name (unless it is something unusual like Lieutenant-Admiral) but it is usual to link the "Sir" as part of the name for people knighted (provided they used the knighthood at the time period under question). These are both a matter of preference, but you must always be internally consistent.
  • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
• Related to the above, ships must always be introduced consistently: sometimes they have HMS and sometimes they don't. I recommend that whenever a new ship is introduced they be given the prefix, but it is not needed on subsequent occassions.
  • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
• "Not to be confused with John Bercow." - is this really an issue? The names are similar, but it would be hard to confuse them.
  • I never thought so, some one else added it and I haven't moved it away yet. SGGH ^ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, his uncle, Thomas, was executed by Charles I" - why? Seems like there is an interesting story behind this.
• "Benbow's lack of possessions" - unless this is a direct quote (in which case it should have quote marks) this is a very odd way of phrasing it - people rarely join the Navy to get more possessions (at least not directly).
• From the Early Years section on the sentence structure is very oversimplified, with one clause sentences following one another. This disrupts the narrative flow and prevents complex ideas developing. Try to expand or merge the sentences to form longer ones with more context and connection.
• "as an HMS Tiger Prize" - what do you means "as an"?
  • Fixed.
• "Benbow distinguished himself well in a number of actions, and won Herbert's approval" - How and what actions?
• "which soon proved the offence true" - "at which Benbow was found guilty"? The sentence also repeats "Booth" too much.
  • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
• Don't link dates.
  • I don't, I have been removing them. SGGH ^ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• "He did not however testify in the Earl's court-martial" - You haven't mentioned an Earl previously (I know you mean Torrington, but others might not).
  • Fixed.
• "Despite his wounds he was determined to continue the chase. Captain Kirkby then came aboard, and tried to persuade him to abandon the chase" - repetition of chase
  • Fixed or in the process of fixing.
• "and the other captains agreed" - all of them?
• "two more sons named Richard" - both of them?
  • It appears to be not unusual at the time, but I can't confirm whether one of them perhaps died. SGGH ^ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• The entire paragraph that follows "Brave Benbow" is what I call a prose list. You see these a lot in TV episode articles and similar, less so in historical ones. Effectively, the information there is disconnected - it is just a selection of random facts that need to be joined but placing similar information in sentences together and joining them up. At the moment it reads like a bullet point list that has been collapsed into a paragraph.
  • Fixed or in the process of fixing.

Thanks for the comments, I shall address in due course. SGGH ^ping! 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And that is all - a very nice article and not far to go until it is at GA standard, although the prose needs quite a lot of work before it can become FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)