Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Chesapeake (1799)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 06:25, 27 May 2011 [1].

USS Chesapeake (1799)[edit]

USS Chesapeake (1799) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here it is. Bad Luck Chesapeake the malignant frigate of the early US Navy. Bad luck followed me during the building process with all of the controversial and contradicting information about this ship. Hopefully I've done an adequate job of clarifying all the points. There is one external link used as a source that has gone dead three times and each time I've found the new link. Of course the link is dead again for the fourth time and I cannot locate it. I do have an offline copy of this PDF which I can mail to anyone wishing to verify the source. The article was wonderfully copyedited by the GOCE just recently. Be careful not to allow the malignant Chesapeake get the best of you. Brad (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you provide volume number for citations to Maclay and Smith
  • Why does the first dictionary include a date and the others do not?
  • Why do some citations use curly brackets instead of parentheses?
  • Ref 97, 102: page(s)?
  • USS Lake Erie website is a work, not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found one instance of missing volume number; fixed.
  • The date was there as an editing reminder no longer needed. Removed.
  • { instead of ( is a habit from typing templates all the time; fixed. (good eye)
  • The 97 source has no page numbers on the document itself unless you want the PDF reader page number. The 102 source now has an external link to it but its only a one page archive document from the NYT.
  • Lake Erie fixed. Brad (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources comment: The links in the references all worked for me, though some were more reluctant than others. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as sure as the sun rises someone else will report it as dead. Brad (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix but I still blame it on the Chesapeake Curse. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "Mediterranean Sea area of operation" - can this be clearer and more precise?
  • As a photo of a painting, File:USSChesapeake.jpg qualifies as PD-art, so copyright status depends on that of the painting, not the photo
  • File:Onlyshotofchesapeake.jpg - page number?
  • File:JamesLawrence.jpg - need more information. Is the author known? Where specifically on the source site can this image be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed caption a bit. Hopefully clearer. Brad (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:USSChesapeake.jpg has been updated with a PD-art tag.
    • File:Onlyshotofchesapeake.jpg There are no page numbers in that Gutenberg source. Instead I gave the Volume, Part and Chapter.
    • File:JamesLawrence.jpg was changed to File:JamesLawrenceATcommons.jpg where I've placed a PD-art tag. Thanks for spotting the pic issues. Brad (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review. This went through A-class a long time ago, and I haven't worked on this one before. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "USS Chesapeake was a nominally rated 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy.": Even though "designed to carry" is not as accurate as "rated" (because she wasn't really designed to carry a specific number, she simply had a rating that allowed her expected armament to be compared to that of other ships), I've asked a couple of intelligent people what the first sentence means, and they couldn't figure it out. Would this work? "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy, designed to carry 38 cannons." - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "USS Chesapeake was a 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy" because "designed to carry 38 cannons" is dumbing down for the reader and it would also really upset the Age Of Sail Nazi's who insist on using "nominally rated". Brad (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I asked a question at WT:MIL#FAC question about "rated". I take it from "Nazis" that you're not going to insist on "nominally rated". How about this for the first two sentences? "USS Chesapeake was a wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy. She was assigned an armament rating of 38 cannons, although the actual number of cannons varied." - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is quickly spiraling out of control. You want to remove "nominally" because no one understands what "nominal" (an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value) means. Removing "nominal" is dumbing down text but I'm willing to live without it.
        • "cannon/s" are always called gun/s; there is no such thing as a "38-cannon ship". All of the sources I've read on these age of sail ships use the word gun; never cannon.
        • The US Navy did not have a rating system like Rating system of the Royal Navy. There is no such thing as a "6th rate" US Navy ship. Applying a Royal Navy definition or pointing to an article about the Royal Navy for more information about a US Navy ship is ludicrous. And I don't care what Fifelfoo thinks just because he reads Aubrey novels. He should stick to referencing uniformity.
        • The solution is still: "was a 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy" as I pointed out before you ran the opinion poll. The explanation on rating vs number of guns is covered in the armament section. Brad (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done per your suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The US Navy certainly did have a rating system, it just wasn't the same as the Royal Navy. There were three ratings of frigates, 44-gun, 36-gun and 32-gun, which determined their complement and how much the officers were paid and had nothing to do with the designed number nor actual number of cannons/carronades/etc. on the ship which was determined by the individual captains during fitting-out. So officially, the Chesapeake was a 36-gun ship but through a mixture of a hasty redesign, contradictory official documents, and traditions that don't make sense to our modern eyes the ship was termed a '38-gun' ship as a compromise to all these forces, and that's the common way the ship is described all modern sources. Not all sources even mention the officially 36-gun part of the story and Brad explains this pretty clearly in the Armament section. Kirk (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm going to have to pour water on this "3 ratings of frigates" theory because that passage was found in Lardas, Mark (2008). American Light and Medium Frigates 1794–1836. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 1846032660. OCLC 183265266. I was able to obtain a copy of that book through my library and it's amounts to no more than a 48 page "travel brochure" on 36-gun and lower rated frigates by an author described in the book as an "amateur historian". More emphasis is placed on artwork and drawings than content. Lardas goes on to speculate that Chesapeake retained her 44-gun rating even after being built and was rerated to a 36 only prior to the War of 1812. However, I've have yet to come across any source that would support this theory. Lardas uses typical sources of which I've read several and none of them support argument. Brad (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Our naval war with France By Gardner Weld Allen has no mention of this 38-gunning stuff so it must have happened between 1801 and 1812; it should be in a congressional document somewhere related to the pay of Captains. Kirk (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Here's the 1825 Naval Register's official ship list w/three 'classes' of ships. Congress and Constellation are both listed as second class, 36-gun frigates [2]; not the time period or ship we're interested in but at least its something. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few notes on the capitalization of "Navy". American style guides have become more or less uniform in promoting what they call the "down" style of capitalization, meaning roughly, if you can get away with lowercasing, do it. If I were strictly following those style guides, I'd be lowercasing most instances of "the Navy". However, a popular approach to copyediting these days is to leave things alone if a particular style occurs throughout the work and it isn't horrible ... and "the Navy" isn't horrible in this article, when it's clear it means "US Navy"; the justification is that "the Navy" is what it's often called, so it qualifies as a proper noun. But it's not called "the young Navy" often, so I can't see capitalizing that, and I also can't see capitalizing "modern Navy" where it's ambiguous, following a long list of British ships. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if you're looking for my approval or disapproval here. If you would like to go with lower case then knock yourself out. Brad (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just saying what the style guides say to help you make the call. If you don't care, I'll lowercase. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any sources that will convince me that Quasi-War doesn't need a hyphen? Per the usual dictionaries, "quasi" isn't an English word. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was only the instance of a missing hyphen in the lead. I fixed it; Quasi-War is now standard throughout. Brad (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit changes the meaning of clause nine of the Naval Act. It's important to note that construction was to begin on all six frigates and continue unless a treaty was reached with Algiers. The way you've worded it doesn't make that distinction. The clause was inserted into the act to appease those who disagreed with building a navy. Brad (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about that; I've changed it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at USS Chesapeake (1799)#Chesapeake–Leopard Affair. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was hoping for help finishing up, but Godot seems to be late. Plodding on.
  • See if you can do something about all the short sentences in the first paragraph of USS_Chesapeake_(1799)#Chesapeake–Leopard Affair; I think the flow could be better.
  • "In this regard Chesapeake ... was greatly inferior.": In which regard?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the entire content of the paragraph that explains Shannon's crew who were well trained and crack-shots with the guns. Therefore: "In this regard Chesapeake ... was greatly inferior"
Overall I'm not understanding why copyediting issues keep arising when this article was copyedited 3 times by two different editors in the GOCE. It seems like copyediting on WP means the personal preference of the editor instead of cleaning up the style of what's already there. Brad (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, inclined to Support: An excellent article and very readable. Apart from some minor issues below, it is very clear to a non-specialist like myself. Just a few points before I switch to full support.

  • Where does the name of the ship come from? (At first, I thought it said "cheapskate"!)
Clarified in the construction section. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 22 June 1807, in what has become known as the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, a precipitating event of the War of 1812, she was fired upon by HMS Leopard of the Royal Navy for refusing to comply with a search for deserters.": A slightly long sentence?
Entire middle paragraph of the lead section redone for clarity. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or Secretary Stoddert rerated Congress and Constellation to 38s" The 38s does not look or feel quite right to me. At first, I thought "-s" was an abbreviation, but that might just be me. Feel free to argue.
38s was out of continuity with the rest of the article. Changed to 38 guns. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chesapeake was launched without ceremony on 2 December 1799": Forgive my ignorance, but what does launching mean in this sense, as it says soon after this "Chesapeake first put to sea on 22 May".
Linked to ship naming and launching. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quasi-War": Minor point, but reading this section, it is not clear that the war was ongoing while these events took place. It makes the section read oddly in isolation. Could a sentence be added to the beginning to give context to the war? Particularly useful for the non-specialist like myself who does not know anything about this event.
Done. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but not quite sure about this sentence: "The undeclared Quasi-War (1798–1800) arose from the French navy's seizing of American merchant ships and Chesapeake was launched on 2 December 1799." The two parts of this sentence do not seem obviously connected but seem to be implying the Chesapeake was launched in response to the war. If this is the case, I think a stronger word than "and" is required.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at fixing this sentence, but please revert if it is wrong or does not work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works very nicely. Thanks for the fix and the review. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It took several months to get the vessels ready for sea; they departed individually as they became readied." Ready ... readied.
Rewritten. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The English minister to the United States requested...": Again, forgive the ignorance, but is "minister" similar to an ambassador? I have a mental image of a clergyman! I think clarification would help.
Changed to ambassador. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leopard also got under way and preceded Chesapeake to sea": Was Leopard in port? The previous sentence suggests the squadron was all at sea.
Clarified. Brad (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Confusion and disarray were the state of affairs on the deck of Chesapeake": Slightly odd phrasing here: "was the state of affairs"? Why not just "there was confusion and disarray on..."
This is to point out the different "state of affairs" on both ships. Whereas Shannon had a well-trained and organized crew (mentioned previously), Chesapeake's crew were confused and running amuck not knowing what to do. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporary sources place the number between 48–61 killed and 85–99 wounded.[89][90][91][92]": Does this really need four sources? If nothing else, could they be put in a note to make it tidier?
I have six sources that mention the number of killed and wounded and not one of them agree with each other. In this edit I moved two references away from the counts. The two references moved, back up the entire paragraph anyway. No need to overcite. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chesapeake went into ordinary..." Could this be explained for non-specialists? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ordinary" = reserve. Changed to reserve. Brad (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made one tweak myself (see above). Thanks for the prompt response, switching to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I don't really have time to review this article at the moment, so I'm not opposing or supporting the nomination, but I do have a couple of comments:
    • The map showing modern borders in the 'First Barbary War' section is rather confusing, particularly with its current caption of "Barbary States in southern area of the Mediterranean" (which seems to be outright wrong as most of the countries it depicts didn't exist at the time). If a map showing the borders at the time of this war isn't available, I'd suggest developing a new map by marking a blank map of the southern Mediterranean with the relevant locations.
    • Is Theodore Roosevelt's book still considered a reliable source? He's better known for his enthusiasm for the US Navy (and, of course, being the President) than the quality of his scholarship. I'd suggest replacing all uses of this book with references to more recent works, if possible. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most recent book I'm aware of and have here is Toll's Six Frigates (2006). Toll uses source documents as a main biblio but his secondary sources include Roosevelt as well as Beach, Chappelle, Cooper, Fowler, and the further reading book by Poolman. It also contains many other books that I've read which were not applicable to this article itself. With that in mind there aren't any large discrepancies between sources in any listed for this article. Toll has on several occasions provided new light on a subject such as the discrepancies over the number of killed and wounded on Chesapeake after her capture. Wherever a more recent book reveals new information I've made sure to note it. Brad (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And noting that Fowler (1984) and Beach (1986) also use Roosevelt. Brad (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Some ignorable comments:
  • Infobox: The armament is cited but I've seen in other places she was armed with 28 18-pounders and 20 32-pounder carronades which leaves out any chasers or cannon on the main/spar deck; you might be better off using Danfs' 1807 armament.
    • Ignorable maybe. In "other places" where have you seen this? I'm listing the 1813 armaments since that was her most in/famous skirmish. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This table says 15 18-pounders, 10 32-pounder carronades and a 12-pounder carronade as a top gun (and I'm not sure what that is...) for a total broadside of 605 lbs. Kirk (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I saw in this bibliography an article entitled: Purcell, Hugh D. "Don't Give Up the Ship!" United States Naval Institute Proceedings 91 (May 1965) which our library happens to have in the stacks. On p. 85 he says the ship has 49 guns with 4 carronades on the forecastle with a 18-pounder cannon as a chase gun, but unfortunately, he didn't cite his sources. Kirk (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate your high level of sleuthing (something seriously lacking at WP) but I feel this is an issue that likely will never be solved. A lot of source documents themselves contradict each other and there doesn't seem to be any one source that agrees with another regarding guns. When an author can't cite a source then he is likely making a WAG just to get his publication finished. Additionally I don't really see a purpose in nit-picking over the location of the guns; it's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Brad (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not trying to nit-pick; its a mystery to me why the sources we use don't agree (and don't cite their sources). Kirk (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Deck
28 x 18-pounder (8 kg) long guns
18 x 32-pounder (14.5 kg) carronades
Spar Deck
2 x 12-pounder stern chasers
1 x 18-pounder bow chaser
1 x 12-pounder (5.5 kg) carronade (Guessing the roles...)
  • This matches the other org. frigate articles, but both tonnage & displacement? And no unit of tonnage?
    • I need specific sources to cite. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the C vs. Shannon section, add a sentence to the lead paragraph.
    • Add what sentence? Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its a two sentence paragraph, that's all; I couldn't think of anything.
  • Mention 3rd Lt. William Sitgreaves Cox somewhere (C vs. Shannon or 'cursed' paragraph)
  • Nice work - only two to go! Kirk (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support and review. There are 3 more to go including the main article. Brad (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Very readable and educational. By this time most "nit-picks" have been taken care of so I can't find much of anything wrong with article. Keep them coming and thanks for contributing your talent to the Ships Project. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your high compliment. It was probably nice to read about something other than a battleship for a change ;) Brad (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • My only quibble is that I think that there should be a comma after "38-gun" in the opening sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Chesapeake_(1799)/archive1&oldid=431137739"