Talk:HMS Roebuck (1774)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This article is in good shape. I don't do a lot of age of sail ship reviews, but I have a few comments re: wikification and mainly MOS issues:

  • in the lead, link Ship of the line
  • in the lead, link Ship commissioning for Recommissioned
  • fifth-rates→fifth-rate ships
  • link Keel laying for laid down
  • the 0 inches in the length and .0 in the depth are unnecessary and could be dispensed with
  • link Ceremonial ship launching for Launched
  • completed by the 4 August 1775
  • drop the hyphen from "with most of the Roebuck-class" as it is not a compound adjective in this case, given there is no noun
  • Done. I think that nas the article title is hyphenated, I assumed that to be the style.--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it is done as Roebuck-class ships it is hyphenated as a compound adjective, when it is just Roebuck class it is unhyphenated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what I've been looking at. I thought the articles were simply called "Roebuck-class" "Flora-class" etc like First-rate without the 'ship'. Sorry for the confusion.--Ykraps (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link frigate
  • suggest "twenty-two 9-pounder guns" and "12-pounder guns"
  • Done. Although I was trying to avoid the repetition of the word guns.--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know what ship's boats she had?
  • I assume you mean, do we have reliable sources stating what boats she had. No, I'm afraid not. The boats mentioned are all sourced but she would have had others too.--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link ship commissioning for First commissioned
  • Hamond is rendered at Hammond a few times
  • link Ship's tender
  • drop the hyphen from armed-galleys and link galley
  • drop the comma from "14-gun, Carolina State Navy Defence"
  • hyphenate "267 strong" as it is a compound adjective
  • drop the comma from "had erected redoubts, and sunk obstructions"
  • link Billingsport
  • Done. Although Billing's Point already links to Billingsport, New Jersey.--Ykraps (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fort Miflin→ Fort Mifflin if that is the correct spelling
  • Done. I think it was spelled with one 'f' in the source I was working from.--Ykraps (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • space needed "six-day bombardment,the"
  • link Gloucester, Massachusetts which I assume should be the target
  • there are a few duplicate links; HMS Phoenix, USS Boston, USS Providence, HMS Romulus, HMS Charlestown and Woolwich Dockyard
  • I can't see repeated links for Romulus and Charlestown, although Boston is linked to both Boston and Charlestown to avoid having to explain that this is the ship captured earlier and now renamed. Is that the issue?--Ykraps (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link privateer at first mention in the body
  • "Then, with five ships-of-the-line" which ships of the line were they? I assume the list that follows were not ships of the line? Perhaps replace the colon with a comma if that is the case
    No, they weren't the ships-of-the-line. I think I got confused in earlier copyedit which I've now reverted. The five ships-of-the-line were: Russell, Robust, Europa, Defiance and Raisonnable. I didn't name them to avoid confusion of the sort we've just been discussing, and because they weren't relevant; having been sent to New York before the attack.--Ykraps (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could add the ship names as a footnote, if you think that has value.--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is needed. It was just the clarity issue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Edisto River
  • suggest converting thirty miles
  • Done. And also added template to "...6 miles from Turkey Point"--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link James Island (South Carolina)
  • link Royal Marines for marines
  • make sure you consistently italicise ship names
  • Done, I think. MOS says ship names should be italicised so let us know if I've missed any.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passed right through" do you mean through her rigging rather than her hull?
  • Hmmm, I don't honestly know. I assumed they went through the hull, otherwise the source would say missed or passed by.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Polacca and Brig
  • there is a space between Note 2 and fn 22
  • drop the comma after "prize money for the frigates"
  • drop the comma after "Roebuck was absent from the fleet"
  • hyphenate "weather beaten"
  • suggest "a French 64-gun ship of the line" if that is what it was?
  • drop the comma after "captured the French privateer"
  • drop the comma after "After a survey"
  • link John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent
  • link St Lucia at first mention in the body
  • "Roebuck was serving in the Leeward Islands"
  • link Barbados
  • link Deptford
  • link Hulk (ship type)
  • what is "the Downs"? link?
  • does "Journal of HMS Roebuck, Captain Andrew Snape Hammond" have an OCLC?
  • same for the second Jones et al. source, Lossing and Simms
  • Apparently not for Jones and Lossing but Simms has one, which I've added.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Out of interest, what did you search for? Because I entered "A Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution" and got nothing.--Ykraps (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Forcing a Passage of the Hudson.jpg needs a US-PD tag
  • For File:Sullivans-island-1050x777.jpg we need a date of publication for the US-PD tag
  • @Peacemaker67: Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for. The painting was done in 1862 according to this[[1]] but I can't see where this information needs to go. There is already a date of death for the artist (1887).[[2]]
  • I think the dates were the wrong way round so I've swapped as per this diff [[3]] so the date the painting was done shows in the summary.--Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just one licensing thing to do. I've fixed a couple of duplicate links myself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with that now. See here [[4]]. Ping me if there's anything else. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for doing the review.--Ykraps (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Roebuck_(1774)/GA1&oldid=895072705"