Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Lagos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Lagos

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Lagos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Lagos/archive1

A naval battle from the age of sail. One where Clausewitz's friction was working overtime and few things went right for either side. I am attempting to break away from late-medieval articles, so haul up your jolly rodgers and I'll stand by to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:HMS_Namur_IMG_4822.jpg and File:Battle_of_Lagos_1759_Detail.jpg: the caption on File:Battle_of_Lagos_IMG_4822.jpg has more details on the original source - suggest including those in this image's description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Apologies, but I have stared at this until I am blue in the face, and I can't see anything that isn't in the other two. Could you give me a clue? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Published 16 March 1806, chez l'Editeur Levrault? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I don't know what super power you use to see that, but I still couldn't see it here. I have added it and to the two derivative images. No - got it. I need to open the images in Media Viewer and scroll down. Now if just I knew how to edit that. Don't tell me, I shall work it out. Ah, it is already there. So, I think that that is this issue sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

• suggest dropping naval from the first sentence, as the mention of fleets clarifies it

Done.

• suggest "The two fleets first fought south west of the Gulf of Cádiz on 17 August, which was followed by engagements east of the small Portuguese port of Lagos on the following day."

Done.

• is he just La Clue, La Clue-Sabran or De la Clue? I'm not familiar with the best approach to French double-barrelled names.

The sources all go with La Clue; except for one de La Clue, but Wikipedia/MilHist practice is to drop leading "de"s.

OK, then just drop the De from De la Clue in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Drat! Done.

• "Boscawen was under orders to prevent this, and to pursue and attack the French if it didif they broke out into the Atlantic."?

Done.

• link Gibraltar at first mention and get rid of the later one

It is only linked once. As is "Strait of Gibraltar" and "HMS Gibraltar".

Sorry, I meant it isn't linked in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Now also linked in the lead.

• "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns,"

Done.

• link French Navy at first mention and get rid of the later one

Done.

• "Meanwhile, Britain's war efforts during the first three years of the war had been a failure"

Done.

• what role was Pitt performing at the time?

How long have you got? Good point. I have inserted the simplistic answer.

I'm not seeing this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is something going wrong with my edits today, which is a bit worrying. Now definitely done.

• for "direct invasion of Britain" link Planned French invasion of Britain (1759). I think doubling up on the Further template is justified given it will be piped.

Done.

• link Vannes

Done.

• link Brest

Done.

• perhaps say where Lorient and Rochefort are? And drop " French Atlantic port of" later for Rochefort

Done.

• "smaller and faster than ships of the line and primarily intended for raiding"

Oops. Done.

• comma after "After great difficulties in preparing them for sea"

Done.

• suggest "The British fleet was surprised by the approaching Gibraltar, which was firing her guns to indicate the enemy had been sighted."

I am not at all keen on that. What is it that you don't like about the current phraseology?

• under way→underway?

Why? See definition 2 of this.

I think a few style guides are now saying it is compounded whether used as an adverb or adjective, but if wikt says so... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

When used nautically I have never seen it compounded. (It comes from "under weigh".) I have just checked my hard copy OED and Chambers and neither give "underway" as an option.

• is it " stepping in" or "stepping-in"?

Wiktionary claims that it is only hyphenated if you are referring to women's underwear! I was checking to play safe; one steps in a mast as one would step in anything else.

• disbursed→dispersed?

Close.

• "but ineffectively"→"but this was ineffective"?

I have gone with "but with little effect".

• "90-gun flagship"

Done.

• "80-gun Océan"

Done.

• A bit weird that Souverain is the slowest ship initially, then later one of the fastest?

Whoops. Thank you. Fixed. These French ships all look the same to me.

• what does weather mean in "failed to weather Cape St. Vincent"?

Wiktionary has "(nautical) To pass to windward in a vessel, especially to beat 'round: to weather a cape ... " I have inserted a Wikt link.

• "it would be illegal" I think it might be worth adding a sentence about the law that this would breach.

A reasonable suggestion. Unfortunately all of the sources take it for granted that it will be understood what is meant. A hunt through their and some other indexes doesn't reveal anything helpful looking. I could readily write the sentence, but I imagine that you would go all fussy and want sources. I will do a literature search and see what come up.

Perhaps a link to Neutral country will suffice when Portugal's neutral status is first mentioned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Done, although I have already set a research assistant to chasing this down, so I may have a little more later.

• suggest "HMS America"

Er. I do at first mention. The other mention is "The British America", so it is not going to confuse.

It is the only America mentioned or involved, so you could probably drop the "British" then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If you wish. It is the first mention in a new section - "The British America attacked Océan ... " - so it seemed worth reminding a reader who was doing the aggressing.

• "Téméraire also struck her colours"

Really? OK. Done.

• Lieutenant-General? I thought that was Vice-Amiral for the French Navy?

Nah. Click the link.

• comma after "Souverain and Guerrier"

Removed as they have already been named.

• Broderick→Brodrick

Good spot. Done.

• "to be known as an annus"

Bleh! Done.

• link Abolitionism

Done.

• is there a citation for the Fireships in the ORBAT?

Irritatingly no. Troude just peters out here, I have changed the text to reflect this and will hunt around to see if I can find where the original editor got the specific information from.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. That was very prompt and picked up lots of things I had missed. Thanks. All addressed; some with queries, and one with a 'I'll get back to you'. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A few additional suggestions, nothing too drastic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harrias

• Quick initial comment from me that the talk page query from 2009 remains partially unresolved: "the infobox lists 14 English ships of the line, but in the "Ships involved", it shows 15" Harrias ^talk 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox still states 14, while the Order of battle section still lists 15 different ships of the line. Harrias ^talk 18:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Co-ordinator note: I am travelling away with work this week, and may not be able to get online much. I would hope to be able to provide a full review on this article, but if it attracts three supports etc in the mean time, don't hold things up on my account. Harrias ^talk 18:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harrias I know that I changed that! (It is 15.) I can only imagine that I had two many windows open and closed one without checking for unsaved edits. I am glad that at least you were paying attention. If this does fly through ACR then I am hoping to promptly nominate it for FAC. Either way, I would appreciate your looking at it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• "In 1756 what was to become known as the.." Personally, I dislike this phrasing, and would prefer "In 1756 what became known as the..", but it's no big deal.

Done.

• "..what she saw as her main effort.." Is it encyclopaedic to refer to France as "she", it seems archaic usage to me?

Changed to 'it' and 'its'.

• Why "..against Britain and Prussia.." but then "..against Great Britain." If anything, I would expect the fuller name on the first use, and then the shorter after. Again, no big deal, just struck me as odd.

Done.

• "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns and both were having serious problems financing the war." "in either the land or sea campaigns" feels like a clause, and as such should have a comma after it.

Done.

• "Meanwhile, Britain's war effort during the first three years of the war.." The quick repetition of "war" feels redundant. Maybe "Meanwhile, the first three years of Britain's war effort.."?

I have gone with 'Meanwhile, Britain's war effort up to early 1756 had been a failure.'

• "The 43 French ships in home waters were split.." Again, the repetition sound awkward here. Would "in domestic service" work?

"Domestic service means something else. I assume that the objection is to "home waters"[?] Yes, it is used four times in four sentences, but it has a precise meaning and I am not sure what would be gained by coming up with three synonyms, apart from confusing a reader.

I take your point; I hadn't thought of that, but now you mention it, I can't get the image of warships with pinnies on them out of my head. I still find this whole section "In total the French had 73 ships of the line, the largest warships of the time: 30 serving abroad and 43 in home waters. The ships in home waters required an aggregate complement of about 25,000 men; they were more than 9,000 short of this.[10] The 43 French ships in home waters were split between the Atlantic port of Brest (22 ships)[11] and the Mediterranean port of Toulon, with a small number at two ports on the Bay of Biscay: Lorient and Rochefort. The British had 40 ships of the line in home waters, and a further 15 in their Mediterranean Fleet, which was based in Gibraltar." awkwardly worded. It isn't just the repetition of "home waters" but of the number "43", and I wonder if something such as this would work: "In total the French had 73 ships of the line, the largest warships of the time: 30 serving abroad and 43 in home waters. The latter were split between the Atlantic port of Brest (22 ships)[11] and the Mediterranean port of Toulon, with a small number at two ports on the Bay of Biscay: Lorient and Rochefort. These ships required an aggregate complement of about 25,000 men; they were more than 9,000 short of this.[10] The British had 40 ships of the line in home waters, and a further 15 in their Mediterranean Fleet, which was based in Gibraltar." Harrias ^talk 09:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I was about to type "fine", when I realised that someone is bound to object that it is unclear whether the "These ships" refers to the "small number at two ports on the Bay of Biscay" mentioned immediately before, or all of them. So I have gone with your suggestion, which loses the clumsy double "43" and quadruple "home waters", but added 'In total' to hopefully forestall this objection. And reworded the opening "In total", to avoid having that twice.

• The lead states that "La Clue was tasked with evading Boscawen and bringing the French Mediterranean Fleet into the Atlantic and then to the West Indies, avoiding battle if possible." but this isn't explicitly mentioned in the body, where it just says that La Clue was ordered to reinforce Bompart, and that he tried to avoid Boscawen's fleet.

I have changed "tasked with" to 'attempting to'.

• "The approach of the Gibraltar, firing her guns to indicate the enemy had been sighted took the British by surprise." Comma after "sighted".

Done.

• "It seems probable.." As this is an opinion, it should be mentioned inline who proposed it, otherwise it appears that Wikipedia is speculating.

You are no doubt correct, but could you point me to the relevant policy, so I know how best to work around it.

It's basically the same ones that required me to include attribution in the lead for the quote: a combination of MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Harrias ^talk 14:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote, so I am not sure how QUOTEPOV is applicable. But you are spot on re ATTRIBUTEPOV; now attributed.

Reviewed to the end of the Background section. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, many thanks for looking at this. All of your points addressed. A couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Continuation

• "In May 1759 the British Admiral Edward Boscawen took command of the British fleet.." It seems redundant to have "British" twice here; I'd suggest removing the first.

Good spot. Done.

• Link General chase.

Done.

• "probably as they were overstrained by crews eager to catch the French" Again, the use of "probably" make this sound like an opinion which would need inline attribution.

I have found an additional cite which states this as a fact - "Most of the logs record sails splitting and booms breaking under the strain imposed by the eager crews" so I have removed the "probably".

• "..before striking her colours after being battered.." I know that there is a link, but I feel that it would improve the comprehension of this article for a layperson to simply state "..before surrendering after being battered.." It just feels like unnecessary jargon to me. Given that the phrase is used twice later (as "struck their colours" and "struck her colours") I would suggest that if it is kept an explanatory footnote is added as well as the link, as this can be read on hover, without having to click through to another article.

Very fair point. I get too close and assume that everyone understands where "Nail his colours to the mast" and "With flying colours" come from. (The first paragraphs of Wikilinks can also be read on a hover - which in this case would have been sufficient. But your suggestion is better.)

• "without any regard to the laws of neutrality" Who said this? Boscawen himself?

Yes. (According to an eyewitness.)

• "Having observed Océan and Redoubtable.." Typo of Redoubtable / Redoutable.

Corrected.

• "De la Clue, seriously wounded.." The article has previously referred to him as "La Clue". Interestingly, his (short) article suggests he was known as "La Clue-Sabran"; should that be adopted instead?

"De" removed. I have come across him in a fair few sources now; none add Sabren. (Other than at first mention.)

• "But when they evaded Brodrick during a winter storm in January 1760 the French Atlantic Fleet had been destroyed at the Battle of Quiberon Bay and they returned to Toulon." This sentence confused me for a while, and I think it needs further clarfication; something like: "But by the time they evaded Brodrick during a winter storm in January 1760, the French Atlantic Fleet had been destroyed at the Battle of Quiberon Bay, and they returned to Toulon."

Nice. Gone with your variant. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: Many thanks for that, appreciated. All of your comments addressed I think. I will start into your source review shortly - I am impressed that you are giving me a total service for this nomination. As with your comments here, probably in stages, and will ping you once I have finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• Citations are consistently formatted in an appropriate style.
• All citations appear to be to reliable sources.
• Although they all appear to be offline or foreign language, I was able to gain access to Willis 2009 via Project MUSE to carry out accuracy and copyvio checks:
  • The article is free of copyvio or close para-phrasing from this source, and I am happy that the other sources would be the same.
  • The article states that "The fleet retired to Gibraltar, arriving on 4 August." (Tracey 2010), but Willis says that Boscawen "took some of his fleet to Salou Bay, close to Tarragona".

None of the other sources mention this, and by the 16th all 15 ships of the line were at Gibraltar. Any ships which may have been sent to Tarragona therefore either continued on to Gibraltar or were frigates or lighter. So I feel confident that "the fleet" retired to Gibraltar, whether or not some went via Tarragona, and whether or not detachments of light vessels conformed to this.

• • The article says that "fresh orders arrived, alerting Boscawen to the probability that the French Mediterranean Fleet would attempt to join up with their Atlantic Fleet, probably at Brest" However, Willis merely says "Boscawen was ordered to keep the French fleet bottled up in the Mediterranean. If the French were somehow to escape, he was to follow them wherever they went and bring them to battle.." Indeed, two pages later, he says that "It was considered just as likely that La Clue would cross the Atlantic to attack Guadeloupe as it was that he would head north and rendezvous with the Brest fleet in home waters to launch an invasion. Historians are still unsure exactly which of those destinations was intended.." Therefore, I don't think we can use Willis to support the claim that the French fleet would probably try and join the Atlantic Fleet at Brest.

We now know that the French fleet, almost certainly, was heading for the West Indies. (I make this clear later in the article.) At the time that they sent Boscawen his orders the British Admiralty didn't know this and were primarily concerned that it might be the case. I think that the full context of the two sentences you quote from Willis makes this clear: "On the third of August, however, Boscawen received fresh orders from the Admiralty. England herself was under threat. Intelligence had shown that the French were amassing huge flotillas of invasion craft in southern Brittany—preparations so vast that they had cost the French government 30 million livres on flatboats alone.5 With French war strategy now tipped towards a final desperate throw of the dice, Boscawen was ordered to keep the French fleet bottled up in the Mediterranean. If the French were somehow to escape, he was to follow them wherever they went and bring them to battle. If they could not be discovered, part of his fleet was to head at full speed to the Solent to join the Channel Fleet, leaving a smaller squadron in Gibraltar to defend English interests in the Mediterranean."

• • Is it worth including a note about dates between sources: the article says that they arrived in Gibraltar on 4 August, while Willis says that the orders came through on 3 August, which would be before, rather than during the refurbishment, though Willis states they arrived during refurbishment, therefore he presumably assumes that they arrived before 4 August.

That is odd. Good spot. I will see if I can find where they are getting their information from. If I can I will report back. If I can't I will reword.

• • "It consisted of twelve ships of the line and three frigates; the most that could be made ready for sea and adequately manned. La Clue, who was unaware of the British fleet's location," I can't find this on page 749 of Willis? (Or indeed at all.)

D'oh! That's because it's in McLynn (p 249 - I assume that the two terminal "49"s confused me, although that's a poor excuse). Now inserted. I seem to have dropped another cite too somewhere, which I will insert.

• • "..or futilely attempting to row after the fleet." As amazing as this image is, I can't see it on Willis page 750, and most of the rest of what is supported by that reference (from "Most ships sailed without their captains..") is on page 751 rather than page 750.

1. I am quite sure I have read this - as you say, it is a memorable image - but obviously not where I have indicated. I will strike it for now and reread Willis once I have worked through this to do list.

2. Apologies. That should, of course have been 751. Corrected.

I'm going to stop for the moment, and ask if you can have a scour through the rest of Willis to check that the article accurately reflects the source. Once you're happy, I'll take a further look. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thank you for that suggestion. All Willis cites now checked. A couple of them were stinkers, which I have corrected, and which I suspect you were aware of. If you would like any pages from McLynn, Rodger or Tracey scanning and emailing to you, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. Nice work, this is looking much better; just a couple of picky points left from me based on Willis:

• "During the late evening of 17 August the French passed through the strait.." Willis doesn't appear to actually mention what time they went through, unless you are extrapolating that "dinner" is equivalent to late evening. Is there another source more explicit about this?

I was indeed extrapolating. It seemed a reasonable paraphrase: 'while the English officers were at dinner' seemed circumlocutory and would need a footnote explaining what time officers dined in the 18th century - to arrive at the same conclusion. Or I could add, or use instead, McLynn "He was almost through the Straits undetected, east of Cueta at nightfall".

I am happy with the current wording in the article, but if you could add McLynn as an additional supporting reference, I would be a bit happier. Harrias ^talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

McLynn added.

• "Most ships sailed without their captains.." This isn't explicit in Willis.

" the few lieutenants that had remained in the squadron were sent from ship to ship with orders for the crews not to wait for the return of their captains" seems explicit to me, especially when backed by "but to bend their sails as quickly as possible, to weigh anchor, and to head for the open sea behind the Namur." and "For those [captains] who were lucky enough to make it aboard a ship, there was little choice about which to board."

Okay, you've sold me on it. Harrias ^talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

One of your changes has baffled me slightly with the wording:

• "Boscawen ordered his ships to maintain formation, to avoid being beaten individually by the French formation." I *think* I know what it means, but I think it needs further work.

Yes. I see your point. I have changed it to 'Boscawen ordered his ships to maintain formation, to avoid his fastest ships reaching and engaging the French squadron individually and being defeated in detail.' Does that work?

Works for me, yes. Harrias ^talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Harrias ^talk 21:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harrias: don't worry about the time. If I had got it right in the first place I wouldn't have had to wait. Thanks for the additional feedback. Your points addressed above.

I've responded on the first point, but the nomination has my support regardless. Harrias ^talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks for the thorough pair of reviews and for the supports. McLynn added as suggested. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, oh! Eagle Eyes is here. Everyone watch out. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is this really a battle and not an action?

According to all of the sources, yes.

• Some of the sentences use the word English but the crew were all Britsh right?

Yes. Me bad.

• Link Great Britain, France and Portuguese because these are all from hundred years ago so those countries changed a lot and are different than the current countries these days.

I have held off - there is no article to link them to other than the ones on the modern states.

• Well I mean Great Britain could be linked to the Kingdom of Great Britain, France to the Kingdom of France and Portuguese to the Kingdom of Portugal.

Done.

• The article Jean-François de La Clue-Sabran uses him as La Clue-Sabran so should be it La Clue-Sabran or La Clue in this article?

Peacemaker raised a similar point and I replied "The sources all go with La Clue; except for one de La Clue, but Wikipedia/MilHist practice is to drop leading "de"s."

• pitching France, Austria and Russia against Britain and Prussia Link Austria, Prussia (and pipe) Russia to the Russian Empire.

Done.

• financing the war. In 1759 more than 60% of French revenue --> "financing the war. In 1759 more than 60 per cent of French revenue"

Done.

• Secretary of State for the Navy link?

Done.

• From the summer of 1757 it came under Could you please try not using seasons if possible?

Sometimes in military articles it is unavoidable; where the season is actually the important aspect, not the month. But that wasn't the case here, so changed.

• "south-east of" vs "south east of the"?

Whoops. Corrected. Thank you.

• I see 3 howevers maybe can remove one of them?

I don't think so. I know that I overuse this, and so check before nominating. I would be happy to consider proposals for alternate formulations for any of them.

• I believe for every 20,000 bytes we can use a however and the second one to 40,000 bytes et Cetra. But that's the way how I think an article should be written so if you disagree then it's fine for me.

• French Navy Was this a proper noun at the time?

Debatable. I am inclined towards saying it is - like Royal Navy. But am happy to change if you would prefer that.

I get conflicting views on this. Probably not, so the n's rendered in lower case.

• fleet was in Gibraltar, anticipated a prompt pursuit.[20][19] Re-order the refs here.

Done.

• Despite these difficulties, by 11.00 pm, within three hours of Gibraltar appearing --> "Despite these difficulties, by 11:00 pm, within three hours of Gibraltar appearing"

Nice one. Done.

• wishing to advertise his manoeuvre to the British, omitted to do this.[24][15] Re-order the refs here.

Done.

The rest will follow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Done so far, and looking forward to the rest. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Part two

• At about 6.00 am a group of large ships came into view and La Clue --> "At about 6:00 am a group of large ships came into view and La Clue"

Done.

• signalled to his ships to "Make more speed".[29][27] Re-order the refs.

Done.

• At 1.00 pm the French ships hoisted their battle ensigns --> "At 1:00 pm the French ships hoisted their battle ensigns"

Done.

• At 2.30 pm the British Culloden engaged the rearmost Same as above.

Done.

• Any bypassed French ships could, he felt, be safely left to Brodrick's squadron.[33][35][27] The tone here is a little bit oddly for an encyclopaedia article but maybe that's only in my ears and re-order the refs here.

Changed "felt" to 'believed' to be a little more formal. Cites reordered.

• open fire and a short, sharp fight developed.[35][33] Same as above.

Done.

• By 4.00 pm Namur was close enough to Océan --> "By 4:00 pm Namur was close enough to Océan"

Done.

• Boscawen transferred his flag to Newark.[36][27] Same as above.

Done.

• The badly wounded La Clue now had command How did he become wounded?

Very good point. Added earlier to where the flagships fight.

• of abandoning ship, struck their colours.[note 1][40] Replace the note and the ref.

I assume you mean 'reverse'? Done.

• was attacked by Warspite at 2.45 pm, but her crew refused to surrender --> "was attacked by Warspite at 2:45 pm, but her crew refused to surrender"

Done.

• battle eventually reached Rochefort. [47] unnecessary space.

Removed.

• fleet in Quiberon Bay in November.[51] [52] Another unnecessary space.

Removed.

• The endemic ill feeling between France and Great Britain No hyphen in ill feeling?

Correct. No hyphen.

• Most captains and many crew were ashore; Typo of crew?

I am not seeing your point here. Sorry. But it is a correct use of crew.

• Shan't it be crews here because of plural situation?

I thought that that was what you were thinking. No, when used like this, the plural of crew is crew - like the plural of sheep or fish. See crew; "2 A person in a crew: 3. (nautical, plural: crew)".

• suggests it is possible that La Clue who had been ordered to avoid --> "suggests La Clue who may have been ordered to avoid"?

Gone with 'suggests La Clue may have been ordered to avoid'. Is that OK by you? No. Hang on. That completely changes the meaning. What is the problem with the original "The naval historian Sam Willis suggests it is possible that La Clue – who had been ordered to avoid battle at all costs – knowing that the entire fleet was relatively close, and not wishing to advertise his manoeuvre to the British, omitted to do this"?

• British were unable to offer much reply --> "British were unable to offer many replies"?

No. "Offer much reply" is a set phrase. See [1]

• As the sun set, the six surviving French ships Merge sun set.

No. I am not referring to a 'sunset', but to the action of 'the sun setting'.

• a broadside from short range and demanding Short rang needs a hyphen.

No it doesn't, it is not being used as an adjective. As in [2]

Okay this is done if you have addressed these then we can promote it. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks CPA-5 All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that rereading I have gone back on one of my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Hold a second the sources of Chaline, le Moing, Monaque and Troude have all a French title maybe we should translate them and some of the ISBNs do not hyphens while others do maybe standerise them? I also replied to one of your replies. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement to translate titles. The MoS states "In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation" (my emphasis) and I consistently choose not to; which so far as I am aware is fine. It is only with quotes that one has to translate: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote."

I'm not seeing the ISBN inconsistency. Could you point it out? All 13 digit ISBNs are hyphenated after "978", no 10 figure ISBNs are hyphenated. I think.

Hi CPA-5 Thanks for the swift response. All addressed, including the links to countries from right at the top. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Morning mate. A beautiful day here; what's it like where you are? Just checking in to see what I need to do to heave this over the line. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good afternoon; grey, cold and rainy just a typical North West European wether. I don't think there is much to say here. I'll pass it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.