Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Alceste (1806)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 [1].

---

HMS Alceste (1806)

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th century frigate which fought on both sides during the Napoleonic wars. It took part in a number of notable actions but is probably best known as the ship that conveyed Lord Amherst on his diplomatic mission to China, following the Treaty of Vienna. Under Murray Maxwell, she was taken on an exploration of the South China Sea where it was discovered, amongst other things, that Korea was in the wrong place. Unlike most of her contempories, she was not ignominiously broken up at the end of her career but wrecked in the Java Sea. Her crew, marooned on the island of Pulau Laut, had to fend off pirates until rescued several weeks later.

Since being promoted to GA in December 2014, I have found additional sources and been able to provide much more information about Alceste’s capture and her previously unmentioned part in the occupation of Madeira. I have also added extra detail on: the Action of 4 April 1808, the incident in the bay of Agay, the raid at Parenza, and the Action of 29 November 1811. Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Euryalus

Construction

*capacity of just over 1,097 tons BM - spell out tons burthen in this first instance in the main text, and its worth including the x/94 fraction if available. Also, the BM abbreviation isusually lower case, as it is in the infobox?

• Done --Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

*Suggest a wikilink to naval long gun, and dropping the "s" off the end of 9-pounder (ie it's a nine-pounder long gun, not a nine-pounders long gun). The long gun article is woefully confusing, but it's better than nothing.

• You're quite right about the "pounders"; I hadn't noticed it before. A conversion template has been used here which adds the "s" automatically. I will see if there is any way to over-ride it, otherwise I can write it out in full.--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

*Pierre Rolland - should this be wikilinked (but hopefully also piped) to Pierre-Jacques-Nicolas Rolland?

• Done - Thanks. I thought I'd searched for an article but obviously I didn't.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

*Minor unit of measurement variation - the beam is listed only as feet while the other dimensions are to inches. Is the beam 40 ft 0 inches, or does this exceed the precision of the source (in which case for consistency I suggest taking all the dimensions to feet only).

• Done - The beam was 40' exactly. I've added 0" for clarity.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

French service

• What was the French squadron at Ile-d’Aix intending to do? Currently implies that anchoring there was an end in itself.

  At that particular time they were simply intending to gain protection from the shore batteries but I rather think you're wondering what their long term objective was. I am afraid sources don't say but for some days before Pallas arrived, she was engaged in the destruction of signal towers along the coast. The signal towers were keeping track of the British ships and relaying their movements to the blockaded French ships. I presume therefore that the French squadron was waiting to be told, literally, when the coast was clear so they could make a break for it. With a bit of searching I could probably reference all that but how much do you think needs including?--Ykraps (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Not that much; if you can say it in a handful of words then fine, if not I suspect it would break up the flow of the section so better left out. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Okay, I've added a bit. See if it's an improvement or not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Could reword second sentence to lead with Pallas being ordered by Thornbrough to go count the ships – the way it is now takes a while to work out who Thornbrough is ordering. Also isn’t clear that Thornbrough has a squadron of his own at his immediate disposal – we only discover this later when referencing Iris and then Indefatigable.

  Done (I think) - I've started the sentence with "Pallas" and also said she was part of a squadron. Is that what you meant?--Ykraps (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Third paragraph – could reword to indicate Allemande sent reinforcements (the frigates and brigs) to Minerve, ahead of of the reference to the winds and the British withdrawal.

  Okay, I've re-ordered the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wikilink topsail. We don't have an article on backing the sails, I wonder if most readers will understand the term? No big deal, just throwing it out there for any views.

  Perhaps not. I've added "slowing down" to indicate the result of doing such.--Ykraps (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• “guns jolted from their positions” – assume this is Minerve’s guns.

  The source is equally ambiguous but I assume so based on the premise that Pallas then fired a broadside. I'll see if I can find a more definite source.--Ykraps (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Apparently not. Richard Woodman makes it clear that it was Pallas' guns that were driven inboard by the force, by adding, "Undaunted, Cochrane's gunners discharged so devastating a broadside into Minerve's hull..." I have clarified this in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

*Did Pallas also ground? Assume so because we reference her draft, but is not clear in the article. In passing, interesting that the British vessel is smaller but more heavily gunned.

• I don't think so, no. She didn't ground because of her shallower draft but she became entangled with Minerve and had to free herself. Sources are not terribly clear on this point but that is my understanding. The official (a) French account says that Minerve didn't ground either but that her anchor fell because the stopper had broken. William James (naval historian) thinks this unlikely as she would simply have cut her cable.--Ykraps (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  I've reworded this to make it clearer and added the alternative explanation as a footnote. Again, see what think. Pallas was not the more heavily armed, she had 12-pounders and Minerve had 18-pounders. I need to take a look at that.--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  I think it's okay. The corresponding articles have Pallas carrying 26 x 12-pounder guns and 12 x 24-pounder carronades, and Minerve/Alceste with 28 × 18-pounder guns, 2 × 9-pounder guns and 16 × 32-pounder carronades (source=Winfield). William James says that at the time of her capture, Minerve was carrying 28 x 18-Pounders, 4 x 8-Pounders and 12 x 36-Pounder carronades. This differs from Winfield because he gives numbers "as built".--Ykraps (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Overall this section becomes occasionally confusing, because it is not always clear what ships are actually engaged or nearby. For example, the approach of the French frigates Armide and Indefatigable is a surprise – we had no inkling they were there until they drew near enough to involve themselves in the battle. Is there any way to detailing the relative forces of each side without this being too much detail for a single extended engagement?

  I'm still thinking about this. When Allemande sent out Minerve and the three corvettes, he also had Armide and Infatigable (not to be confused with the British Indefatigable) cleared for action and standing by. Perhaps if I mention this early on it might clarify things. I'm not sure about listing the squadrons as not all the ships are named and, as you say, it might be too much. Do you think a footnote would help?--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Okay, I've had another look at this; moved the mention of Armide and Infatigable further up the page and tweaked the whole paragraph a bit. See if it's any better.--Ykraps (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Capture

• Obscure one – the lighthouse is more commonly spelled Chassiron (French WP article here.

  Done - Spellings in old sources can be a bit of a problem and there doesn't appear to be a guideline for dealing with them. I usually stay faithful to the source and link it, but because there is no article, I think it's probably better to use the modern spelling.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• The forming of line-of-battle seems an unnecessary detail given the order was not actually followed. Should this simply be replaced with Hood ordering the general chase? Also, potentially wikilink general chase.

  Done - I wondered about that myself so I have removed. Good idea about the link.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

*Needs to explain the French ships were still together when Monarch drew near. And (minor quibble), “run for it” seems a bit colloquial.

• Done - Changed to "fled".--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

British service

*Alceste was the frigate unsuccessfully sent to rescue the Pope in 1808 so that he could seek asylum in Britain. While the rescue failed, it placed this vessel at the centre of what would have been a substantial European event. It would be good to include mention of this in the article.

• Indeed, it would be very good to include this in the article but I'm afraid I cannot find any mention of it in the sources I have available. Do you have a reference?--Ykraps (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've got a Mariners Mirror article on it that covers the main points - will work out how to get it across to you. It's not an earth-shattering addition, just think it's worth a few lines. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be this then.[[2]] Unfortunately I can't access the article as I'm not a member. Although £40 pa doesn't seem bad value particularly as it gets you free access to the Royal Naval Museum and HMS Victory.--Ykraps (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a piece based on the above article. Not sure about the length and detail; take a look and let me know what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

More

• British service - Being part of Cochrane's squadron in December 1814 - not so much a convoy as a flotilla of armed boats proceeding to the Battle of Lake Borgne - do we know if Alceste was part of that action?

  The information was added by another editor here.[[3]] As you can see, the first part appeared to be referenced so I left that and removed the reference to Lake Borgne here.[[4]] Clowes Vol VI p.148 says Cochrane’s squadron escorted a large number of storeships and transports carrying troops, to the mouth of the Mississippi on 8 December, and so I took that to be the convoy referred to in that sentence. I couldn't at the time find a reference for the rest; Clowes does go on to say how Cochrane found five American gunboats in the bayou called Lake Borgne and dispatched 42 ships’ launches but the only one he identifies is that of HMS Seahorse. However, I have now found this issue of the Gazette[[5]] which states that Alceste was awarded a share of the prize money for the capture of the gunboats so I guess we could put the deleted sentence back. I'm going to think on this again tomorrow but in the meantime, if you have any thoughts, please share them. Your edits are fine by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  I'm uncomfortable with using the Gazette on its own to say definitely that Alceste’s boats were used. Receiving prize money from a capture doesn’t always mean a particular ship was present. I know for example that frigate captains often agreed to share prizes with each other. What if we say, "In late 1812, Alceste was decommissioned and placed in ordinary at Deptford. Between February and July 1814 she was converted at Deptford into a troopship; in this role, she was recommissioned in May 1814 under Commander Faniel Lawrence, and sailed with troops to North America. (Ref: Winfield, p.178) Alceste left Pensacola on 8 December 1814, in tandem with the 50 other vessels in Vice-Admiral Alexander Cochrane's convoy. (Ref: Marley, p 462) En route to New Orleans, the expedition discovered five American gunboats in the shallow waters of a bayou near the Chandeleur Sound. In what became known as the Battle of Lake Borgne, Cochrane dispatched 42 of the ships’ boats, carrying nearly 1,000 men, to capture them (Ref: Clowes, pp.148-149)"?--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  Euryalus, If this [[6]] counts as a reliable source, I think we can say that Alceste's boats were used. Several medals were awarded to members of her crew for a boat action on 14 December 1814.--Ykraps (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  I found some more sources and added a few sentences about the Battle of Lake Borgne.--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Image - haven't checked the licensing but in case you need another one there's a nice image of Alceste here. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  I also found that image but decided against its use because of copyright. Although the original image is in the public domain, the NMM's digital copy isn't; British copyright law differs to US copyright law in this respect. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. The NMM has released some of its images under creative commons licence but unfortunately this is not one of them.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- Euryalus (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Alceste_at_Bogue.jpg: source link is dead and what are the two authors' dates of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  Judging by the address I would say that was from the National Maritime Museum [[7]]. I am afraid I'm not an expert on copyright legislation but the book it was published in is in the public domain.--Ykraps (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  ...and here it is.[[8]] This gives the year of McLeod's death as 1820.--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  And this says Dubourg died in 1838.[[9]]--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, Is there something you want me to do with this information?--Ykraps (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  Please add author dates and source details to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done - Although I'm only guessing the source based on the nmm (National Maritme Museum) part of the original link.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• So far this looks pretty good. To explain my first edit summary from today: I deleted a bit from the first paragraph so that readers would find out sooner that the ship was captured by the British and renamed. The faster they have that information, the faster the article title makes sense, and the less effort they have to expend making sense of it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  I think that makes more sense. It's usual to keep everything in chronological order but in this case I think it's detrimental to do that.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I just now saw your question at the peer review about that comma. The answer is that in a comma-heavy sentence, it's a common style (and seems to be FAC style) to also have a comma separating the two independent clauses, particularly when there's a comma nearby that might be mistaken, even for a millisecond, for the separation point between the clauses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• "40 feet 0 inches": I'm not sure what reviewers are going to say about that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  It originally said sinply 40' but someone made the point that it looked odd when all other dimensions were feet and inches. I thought that was a fair point at the time and changed it. Perhaps I'll see if anyone else weighs in on the subject.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I got down to HMS_Alceste_(1806)#Capture. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Sarastro covered a lot of the things that I was concerned about, so I'm done here, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• A bit hard to imagine how the ship looked, perhaps show a more "neutral" view of a ship of the same type (Armide-class frigate ?) somewhere?

That makes this (unimportant) issue the last one unaddressed. Any comment? FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In terms of showing how the ship looked, the illustration in the Armide-class article is very good but I've been wondering how I can fit it in. Images ought to be relevant to the text so the obvious place would be in the construction section but this creates some nasty sandwiching of the text. I toyed with the idea of using it in the infobox and moving that image to where it talks about that engagement but I'm not sure about having a picture of another ship in the infobox when one of the actual ship is available. I've been looking for some sort of guideline but haven't found anything yet. Do you have any further thoughts or Dank, Euryalus? --Ykraps (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 08:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Prefer the Armide-class image for the lead - it gives a clearer representation of the general vessel design, and better fits thousands at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Support retaining the other image in the article body, as suggested. -- Euryalus (talk)

Okay, I've swapped the images as agreed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• "built to a design by Pierre Rolland for the French Navy as the Minerve" Selflink.

  Removed

• I'm not sure about referring to the ship by its later name in a section where it was called something else? Perhaps just start with calling it "the ship was built to a design etc."?
  • Yes. SHIPS people tend to have definite opinions on names, and I have to admit I'm not sure how they like to handle this. I'm generally happy with their approach to these questions. If it were up to me, the first word both in the lead and in the first section below the lead would be "Minerve"; "HMS Alceste" would appear (bolded) in the second sentence in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think I have done that. I've referred to it as Minerve when it was called Minerve and Alceste when it was called Alceste. Or do you mean something else?--Ykraps (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Under Construction and armament you say "Alceste was built to a design by Pierre Rolland". FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes that's true but its relationship to Minerve is explained in the very same sentence. As with Dank's reasoning above regarding the intro, it is better that the reader finds out quickly that the ship was captured by the British and renamed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If Dank is happy with this, I am too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No objections. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• "under Contre-Amiral Zacharie Allemand" Why is the rank in the link? Couldn't that link to something else?

  Linked to Contre-amiral although that particular article isn't very good. Perhaps it ought to link to Rear-admiral?--Ykraps (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention what both names were based on in-text, and not only in the infobox?

  I'm unable to find any reference for either namesake and have therefore removed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• No namesake in the infobox for Alceste?

  The British couldn’t retain the name Minerve because they already had a ship of that name so they named her Alceste probably after HMS Alceste (1793) which the French presumably named after Alcestis. This is unreferenced original research though, as is often the case in the articles that contain this sort of information.--Ykraps (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• "and forced her to strike at 15:00." What is meant by strike?

  I've linked this for you.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• What happened to the crew after capture?

  It's not recorded. They were usually locked in the hold until they could be put ashore either in a neutral port where they were released or in a home port where they were imprisoned.--Ykraps (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• "to extract his holiness the Pope" I don't think honorifics are to be used.[10]

  Removed --Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Which pope are we talking about?

  Pius VII. I've added and linked.--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Could we get date and maybe attribution for the captions of all the illustrations?

  I assume you mean attribution for the illustrations so I've added that. If you mean attribution for the captions, most of them were mine. :) --Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup! FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Why is Fort Maxwell bolded in a caption?

  No idea. Now removed, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Madeira and La Pomone are overlinked.

  Removed - I think. Let us know if I've not got them all.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Napoleon is not linked at first mention, but way below.

  Removed - a paragraph was added later.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• The intro seems short for the article length. Little mention of the ship's actions under French control, for example. Should summarise the entire article

  She had only been commissioned a few months before her capture and her only notable action was the duel with Pallas on 14 May 1806 so its inclusion could be deemed WP:UNDUE. There was a short paragraph detailing it in the intro but it was removed with this edit here [[11]]. I have added it back in a slightly different guise to see if I can please you both.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - every issue addressed nicely. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: Down to the start of the Diplomatic Mission to China section. Looking good. I've done some copyediting; most of it is just punctuation (I'm mildly addicted the mdash, so feel free to replace these) or fairly minor rewording. Just a couple of points so far, but the first one is quite a big one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comma inconsistency: When we start a sentence with dates or adverbials, we need to be consistent whether or not we have a comma. For instance, we have "In 1814 Alceste was converted..." and "At 23:00 the British landed 200 seamen" but also "Two days later, Pallas..." and "On 22 May 1810, Alceste encountered ...". Whichever method we are using, the article needs a good check to make sure we are consistent.

  Ordinarily I would employ a comma because that's the way I was taught, although I think the modern trend is to omit them. Dank is midway through a copy edit so I don't want to put commas in where I suspect he will remove them.--Ykraps (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• My preference is to include them too; I think the most important issue is to be consistent. If Dank doesn't get a chance before I finish, I can stick a few in here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Do whatever looks right to you, Sarastro, I'm sure it will be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• "It has been suggested by the British historian James Henderson that this action was a factor in Napoleon's decision to change the direction of his planned eastward expansion in 1812 from the Balkans to Russia": Does anyone else share this view? And how mainstream is Henderson? Is this a controversial theory or a respected one? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  I vaguely remember someone else postulating the same thing but currently I'm unable to find where. Are you suggesting it is WP:Fringe? To me it's not an unreasonable thing to think. The army at Trieste was poised to invade the Balkans, the cannon were bound for the army there, and shortly after their capture, Napoleon changed his mind and invaded Russia. Henderson suggests it may have been a factor. I would like to keep it as it's interesting and has been used for a WP:DYK but if it's a deal breaker...--Ykraps (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, I'm not saying it is WP:FRINGE, I'm sure it's perfectly respectable. I'm well aware that top academics can hold differing views from their peers without being dismissed as cranks! I was meaning more along the lines of is it only him that thinks so among historians, or do others share his view? I'd be very slightly happier if others said so too, but the way it is phrased here makes it clear that it is his view, and that makes it absolutely acceptable to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  I'm still looking. I thought William James (naval historian) also mooted the idea but apparently not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

More: Read to the end now. This is a rather marvellous article! If no-one else tackles the commas before I have a last look, I'll have a go myself, but I'll be more than happy to support when I've had a final read-through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I notice there is a little more about the journey up the Tigris in our article on General Hewett, but I've no idea if it's reliable or not. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note, Tigris is not a river, it is the Bocca Tigris, Mouth of the Tiger, a stretch on the Pearl River. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• That article is mainly the work of User:Acad Ronin whose sources are usually reliable and accurate. Is there a particular bit of information you would like to see included?--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Absent original research in logbooks, should they survive, my info is only as accurate as the published sources. Please let me know if you have any questions.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• The main bit was this: "Alceste fired several broadsides at the fort and junks that attempted to block her way, and proceeded to anchor at the usual place. Shortly thereafter Alceste received fresh provisions, and General Hewett a cargo. The firing that had taken place at the mouth of the river was officially described as a "friendly interchange of salutes": I particularly like the official explanation! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sarastro1, I've added a little more detail as you suggest. The source [[12]] actually says, "publicly announced". I'm not sure that's the same as "officially" so see if you like my wording. Thanks for your comments and support by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Support: The last copy-edit seems to have sorted the comma consistency, and a last glance through hasn't thrown up anything else. I'm more than happy to support now, with the usual copy-editing disclaimer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- Source review for formatting/reliability? You can leave request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Source review: Sources look reliable and of suitably high quality. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• For consistency, all the books in the bibliography need a publishing location. At the moment, Lyon and Winfield, Marley and Winfield do not have a location.

  Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Refs are inconsistent in using p or p., and whether there is a space between p and the page number.

  Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 45 has spaces around the dash in the page ranges, but no other refs with multiple pages use this.

  Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• We need consistency over whether we use a full stop (period) after each short citation: ref 54 uses one, but the others do not.

  Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why The Annual Biography and Obituary for the Year 1832 and Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine are not cited in the bibliography? They are used several times so it would make sense to move them to the bibliography and use a short citation for the reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  Agreed and done. I think I got everything but let me know if I've missed anything.--Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Nearly there but a few last inconsistencies:

• Refs 8, 38 and 42 should be p. not p for consistency

  Done --Ykraps (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 28 has a space between pp. and the page range; the other references do not

  Done --Ykraps (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 54 includes 1994, but this is the only work by Hepper so it is not needed in a short citation.

  Done --Ykraps (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Everything fine after these are done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.