Template:Did you know nominations/Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville
The following is an archived discussion of Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville[edit]
.jpg)
- ...
that Latouche-Tréville (pictured), who had captured several British ships, damaged a 74-gun ship of the line with two frigates, and beat Nelson at Boulogne, was chastised by his superior because he had brought his mistress to war?
5x expanded by Rama (talk). Self nominated at 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
Article length and dates of publication are all OK; has reliable sources and no copyvios. There are a few very minor issues which can be addressed on the Talk page and do not offer any impediment to DYK. The hook about the mistress, however, is a problem: it is not mentioned in the article at all! There is an abundance of good material to devise a new hook: can you suggest one here? SteveStrummer (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was alluding to the quotation of Vaudreuil writing to Castrie ("Sir de la Touche diserves that you make him a reprimend; he had on a ship with him a creature with whom he lives"). Maybe I should tweak the formulation for more clarity? Rama (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think some explanation for the quotation is necessary. It's not stated that he had a wife, so the "creature" is not necessarily a mistress. It's also a little unclear just how important an issue this really was. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The original quotation is quite clear that he was having a relationship with someone who was not his wife, so I blame my translation. I'll look into clues as to the importance of the issue. Thank you for the comments! Rama (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is it possible to introduce this info with a statement about when Latouche was married, and perhaps give his wife's name? Is there any other info on the mistress? I just feel that the quotation is a little stranded, and needs some glue to join it with the other text. All the other matters are all settled nicely as far as I'm concerned, and I'm eager to see this article go the front page :) SteveStrummer (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know whether Latouche-Tréville ever married; that nobody even mentions it is probably a clue that he did not. The girl was more his concubine. Under the Ancien Régime, some found it scandalous to overtly entertain such relationships (although there were lots of extra-marital affairs, for variety of reasons). Rama (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the new wording conveys the info well enough, although future tweaks might help too. Anyway, I think this is good to go now, except for the wording of the hook: the word "mistress" should be replaced but I don't think the rather exotic term "concubine" is appropriate. Right now I can't think of a particularly better term, so how about simply: "...chastised by his superior because he had brought a female companion to war?" SteveStrummer (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- To make the proposal formal:
- I think the new wording conveys the info well enough, although future tweaks might help too. Anyway, I think this is good to go now, except for the wording of the hook: the word "mistress" should be replaced but I don't think the rather exotic term "concubine" is appropriate. Right now I can't think of a particularly better term, so how about simply: "...chastised by his superior because he had brought a female companion to war?" SteveStrummer (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know whether Latouche-Tréville ever married; that nobody even mentions it is probably a clue that he did not. The girl was more his concubine. Under the Ancien Régime, some found it scandalous to overtly entertain such relationships (although there were lots of extra-marital affairs, for variety of reasons). Rama (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is it possible to introduce this info with a statement about when Latouche was married, and perhaps give his wife's name? Is there any other info on the mistress? I just feel that the quotation is a little stranded, and needs some glue to join it with the other text. All the other matters are all settled nicely as far as I'm concerned, and I'm eager to see this article go the front page :) SteveStrummer (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The original quotation is quite clear that he was having a relationship with someone who was not his wife, so I blame my translation. I'll look into clues as to the importance of the issue. Thank you for the comments! Rama (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think some explanation for the quotation is necessary. It's not stated that he had a wife, so the "creature" is not necessarily a mistress. It's also a little unclear just how important an issue this really was. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was alluding to the quotation of Vaudreuil writing to Castrie ("Sir de la Touche diserves that you make him a reprimend; he had on a ship with him a creature with whom he lives"). Maybe I should tweak the formulation for more clarity? Rama (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- ALT 1 ... that French admiral Latouche-Tréville (pictured), who had defeated Horatio Nelson at Boulogne, was chastised by his superior because he had brought a female companion to war?
- That this is very good. These connotated words for "woman" do not age well (thank Goodness!), and they are a brute to translate, so your approach of cutting through it and using a more modern wording is probably better.
- I am very grateful for your considerable help with this article; without you, its wording would be far less enjoyable, and I'd still be struggling in this "mistress/concubine/kept woman" thing. Cheers! Rama (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Good to go with Alt1! SteveStrummer (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Please could you double check the length of the ALT1 hook? Even discounting (pictured), it appears to be 240 characters - the maximum is 200. It's also helpful to those promoting a nomination if you strike through hooks that are not to be used. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alt1 revised, thank you for the heads-up. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
restoring Steve's approval tick as ALT hook now within length criteria - thanks for your prompt attention! SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)