# Talk:Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War

The West Indies and Gulf Coast campaigns article has nearly the exact same info as this one. We don't need to duplicate, and this article is broader in scope. Civil Engineer III 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, marge  Thanks to this article  Hmains 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The large majority of this article has no citations and no references leading me to think it was written by someone with extensive knowledge of the subject, but who was perhaps paraphrasing material he or she has written previously.  Wikipedia is greatly indebted to scholars who take the time to add their knowledge and expertise but articles must still follow Wikipedia guidelines and that means authoritative, original prose backed up with an adequate number of references and inline citations.
Also, this article has a lot of superfluous, flowery language making it read like a college textbook, not an encyclopedia article.  I think much of it needs to be "translated" into plain English by someone with knowledge of the subject.  Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"The fleets were equal but the action was indecisive, as the two forces merely passed one another, cannonading."
I don't understand what this means -- were none of the ships harmed because they were just cannonading (?) at each other?  And if so, what do we call it when they are actually shooting at each other, intent on destroying the enemy's ships? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War/CommentsTalk:Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 15:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 00:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll read through properly and start the review later today. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 

The lead needs a bit of work. It starts off a bit oddly, stating "The War of the American Independence was by no means confined to North American soil; naval operations, by both the Continental Navy and privateers, ranged across the Atlantic..." The title of the article is the "...American Revolutionary War", so it is a bit strange to use something else in the first sentence. It is also strange to start off by talking by about land battles, as the title of the article is "naval battles". It would be very useful to give dates for the conflict early on in the lead, and an indication of the parties involved in the conflict. It would furthermore help to make clear bound how you are containing the article; the main American Revolutionary War article makes clear that it considers the naval conflict to extend to the Bay of Bengal etc. - if you are making this article more narrow, it would be useful to clarify how and why in the lead.
The lead also brings up an issue that stretches throughout the article - it feels as though it was written from a US POV - the lead is almost entirely about Revolutionary and allied naval activities, for example, and makes only a very passing reference to the Royal Navy, which seems odd (unless I'm missing something!).
Is there any way to summarise how many naval battles occurred during the war in the lead? (e.g. "There seven major battles and dozens of smaller engagements..." or whatever the right number would be!) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
See if it's better. I reworded most of the lead, although I'm struggling with the first sentence (I'm all ears for a suggestion). I included a reference to the British blockade, removed some lateral US activity and added "British" wherever it was possible. About the US POV, I think that's because Britain was almost always on the defensive on the sea from 1778 onwards, making the French the active subject pushing them around whenever they appear, the rest was only they watching the Americans on the coast and transporting troops around. For the quantitative aspect, although I tried to make the article the least similar of a list possible, I suspect that would be impossible to deliver a list of actions, I'm not aware of such a list and suspect it didn't exist or can't exist, unless it went for subjective words as "various" or "dozens". Maybe a link to List of American Revolutionary War battles? That's very far from comprehensive though. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There are some versions worked on, would you mind taking a look? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
For first sentence(s), how about "The American Revolutionary War saw a series of military manoeuvres and battles involving naval forces of the British Royal Navy and the Continental Navy from 1775, and of the French Navy from 1778 onwards. These culminated in the surrender of the British Army force of General Charles, Earl Cornwallis, an event that led directly to the beginning of serious peace negotiations and the eventual end of the war."?
Fixed
"the British North American Station under Vice-Admiral Samuel Graves blockade the major colonial ports" - "blockaded"
Fixed
"In 1777, Colonial privateers had made raids into British waters capturing merchant ships, which they took into French and Spanish ports, although both were officially neutral." - "made", not "had made"
Fixed
"France officially entered the war on 17 June 1778, and the French ships sent to the Western Hemisphere spent most of the year in the West Indies, and only sailed to the Thirteen Colonies during the Atlantic hurricane season from July until November." - I wasn't sure what the hurricane season bit was telling the reader here
Fixed
"The first Franco-American campaign saw a French fleet commanded by Vice-Admiral Charles Henri, comte d'Estaing attempted landings in New York and Newport," there's a problem with tense here ("saw" would need "attempting landings" as you're positioning it in the present tense; or you could have "In the first Franco-American campaign, a French fleet commanded by Vice-Admiral Charles Henri, comte d'Estaing attempted landings in New York and Newport..." and put it all in the past tense
Fixed
"Comte de Rochambeau" - you'll need to be consistent in capitalisation of comte
Fixed
"Rodney detached Rear Admiral Sir Samuel Hood with 14 ships of the line and orders to find de Grasse's destination in North America." - "and orders" read oddly to me here, probably because the normal expression would be simply "with orders"; how about "Rodney detached Rear Admiral Sir Samuel Hood and 14 ships of the line with orders to find de Grasse's destination in North America."?
Fixed
"after some critical decisions and tactical missteps " - unclear what critical means in this context (important? negative/poor?)
It's better explained in the narrative, I reworded this one
"The Royal Navy attempted to dispute this control, " - read oddly. Did they attack the French?
Yes, reworded to advance the narrative
"effectively winning the war " - what does effectively mean here? (could mean several different things...)
Explained better
"The British were still able to sail in supplies from Nova Scotia, Providence, and other places because the harbour side of the city remained under British naval control" - "harbour side" could be misread. How about "The British were still able to sail in supplies from Nova Scotia, Providence, and other places because the harbour remained under British naval control"?
Fixed
"the town and the British forces were on short rations" - can't really be town if it is a city... "the inhabitants and the British forces were on short rations"?
Fixed
"The Royal Navy around occupied Boston was under the command of Vice-Admiral Samuel Graves. The Royal Marines were under the command of Major John Pitcairn. The British forces as a whole were led by Governor General Thomas Gage." - a bit clunky and repetitious - could these sentences be combined in any way?
Reworded
"Graves had, in addition to hay and livestock, hired storage on Noddle's Island for a variety of important naval supplies" - is the hay and livestock actually relevant here? If so, how about "Graves had hired storage on Noddle's Island for a variety of important naval supplies, hay and livestock" (brings the verb forward)
Fixed
"with the supplies in the city running shorter by day," - "by the day"?
Fixed
" to raid farmers for supplies" - "raid farms" would be more natural
Fixed
"the Colonials " - you'll need to be consistent in the capitalisation
Fixed
"under the command of James Moore, a midshipman from his flagship Preston" - needs to be "under the command of James Moore, a midshipman from Graves' flagship Preston" as you've got intervening male actors...
Fixed
"Jeremiah O'Brien immediately outfitted one of the three captured vessels with breastwork" - can you link or explain what breastwork is?
Added a note
"the guns and swivels " - ditto, what's a swivel?
Linked
"By February 1776, the first ships of the fleet " - it's the start of a new section, so you need to specify the fleet, e.g. "By February 1776, the first ships of Contintental fleet "
Fixed
"The fleet that Hopkins launched" - is launched the right verb here?
I think it's the stablished term
"Hoping to catch more easy prizes, Hopkins continued to cruise off Block Island that night, forming the fleet into a scouting formation of two columns. The right, or eastern column, headed by Cabot, was followed by Hopkins' flagship, Alfred, at 20 guns the largest ship of the fleet, and the left column, headed by Andrew Doria, was followed by Columbus. Behind these came Providence, with Fly and Wasp trailing further behind as escorts for the prizes." - for an overview of the whole war, this felt a little detailed - are the details of how the ships sailed that particular evening critical?
Removed
"its failure to capture Glasgow" - I think there's something missing here: what is the Glasgow incident?
Explained
"Nicholas Biddle" - can you explain who he is? (e.g. if he's an historian, can you say "The historian Nicholas Biddle...")
Explained earlier
"He had violated his written orders by sailing to Nassau instead of Virginia and the Carolinas" - at the moment, you don't say that he was actually supposed to go to Virginia etc.; this probably needs to made clear at the start of the section
Added some context in the beginning
"after further controversies, including the fleet's failure to sail again, it suffered from crew shortage, and further exacerbated when the British captured Newport, Rhode Island, in December 1776 trapping the remaining ships at Providence" - the grammar in the second half of the sentence needs some work... ;)
Reworded
"The British fleet destroyed Arnold's, but the US fleet managed to slow down the British after a two-day battle, known as the Battle of Valcour Island, and slowed the progression of the British Army." - "slowed" is used three times in close succession in this paragraph; needs a bit of a tweak
Reworded
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

A couple of references appear to be missing: Ketchum 1999, Lockhart 2005, Nelson 1996, Caulkins 1895 (these may have incorrect dates or partial author information, though - I can't tell for sure)
Caulkins & Griswold 1895 doesn't appear to be used, nor Lockhart 2008 (ditto)
Ref 1 needs a bit of work (currently a bare google books link)
Not a GA requirement, but some bibliographic items list the location and publisher, others just the publisher. Some have both ISBN and OCLC provided , others just ISBN. Ideally the article would be consistent.
Fixed. For the refs I went as completionist as possible, right now anything missing should be either non-existent or I was unable to find it. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.

None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

There has been some debate below, reflected in editing of the article, around whether the article should cover the Carribean, Indian Ocean etc. Before we finish up the last bits of the review,, User:Bertdrunk, would you be content if I ask the WP:MILHIST project for a second opinion? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Whatever... Bertdrunk (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The feedback from the MilHist group was that the article was covering the main aspects of the topic. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Some chopping and changing in December, but broadly stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

File:ContinentalNavyShipColumbus.jpg - the painter is William Nowland Van Powell (1904 – 1973), which would normally make the underlying artwork still subject to copyright, and I can't work out from the file where the evidence is for it having been prepared by a federal employee. Other images are all fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

"Phoenix and Rose engaged by the enemy's fire ships and galleys" - unclear who "the enemy" is in this caption
"Alfred, one of the first ships in the Continental Navy preparing for her maiden voyage." - the MOS wouldn't include the period (.) at the end
"Comte d'Estaing, 1769 portrait by Jean-Baptiste Lebrun." - ditto
"Arrival of d'Estaing's squadron at Newport on 8 August. Engraving by Pierre Ozanne." - 8 August, which year? No need for final period
"A 1778 French military map showing the positions of generals Lafayette and Sullivan around Newport Bay on August 30." - ditto, year needed, no need for final period
"Grey's raid movements from Newport to New Bedford and Fairhaven ending at Martha's Vineyard and back to New York." - no need for final period
"Diagram of the line of battles at the Chesapeake, Sep. 5, 1781" - worth being consistent in how you present dates (e.g. why not "5 September 1781"?)
Fixed. Now all dates are consistent too. Bertdrunk (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for picking up the review. This is my first GA nomination, so pls let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Best regards. Bertdrunk (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem, and do question me and push back if you think I'm getting anything wrong too! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to note that this page as written would fail as a good article for lack of completeness. As it stands the article contains no information regarding several major and important naval campaigns of the war in Europe, the Caribbean, and in the Indian Ocean. A prior version of this page actually did include information on those areas, but user:Bertdrunk deleted it entiretly and has slanted this page towards a purely American point of view. He completely eliminated all reference to Spanish naval involvement in the war for example, even though Spanish naval actions during the war were more notable than most of the American ones.XavierGreen (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't be such a jerk man, if you have content issues with me why don't you try to do something useful for once instead of random rant at every article I edit? And no, I didn't "deleted" anything, much less "eliminated all reference". Even if I tried there wasn't none. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Upon looking back through the edit history, it looks like another editor (rather than you) had removed most of the references to the other naval campaigns prior to your overhaul of the page. Regardless, the operations in the caribbean, european waters, and east indies still need to be included to meet the completeness criteron of a good article.XavierGreen (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
XavierGreen has a point, the article is not called "Naval battles of the American Revolutionary that did not occur in European waters. By the same token he is wrong to say the article does not mention such actions.
XavierGreen please list here which actions you think should be in  the article, and a source for it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


### Status query
Hchc2009, where does the article stand now with regards to your GA review? I see that there were edits to it during February, but there hasn't been an update here since January. Have the edits addressed the issues you raised? Do you wish the other issues discussed here to be taken care of? Please respond as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking good. We just need to sort the long running, slow-burn argument over the scope of the article. Will put forward a proposal at the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the American Revolutionary war, therefore giving it "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", calling for the " use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." per MOS:TIES.  The recent revert of edits changing terms to American English on the basis that the article is written in British English misses that point entirely.  The tagging of the article for use of British English is as uncalled for as is its misuse in proper nouns, such as Boston Harbour [sic] (as bad as calling the city in England Wooster.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

1st You didn't change anything, you edited two words, which maybe, just maybe, made the article 10% American English.
2nd A war is, by definition, between two countries. It can't be more "about" one than the other, as , obviously, without one you can't have the other to fight alone, can you?
3rd Beyond mixing two styles, you're mixing two tags too, as there's already one from November 2016, and another one at the top of this page.
4th Not my point of view, but as you seem to use it without thinking about it, "America" didn't even existed when this started, it was all "Britain".
5th Take a look at your link and read about consensus for a change. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Postmortem note: Go to the War of 1812 to see if you'll be able to change it too. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I really don't want to get dragged into an ENGVAR discussion, but a couple of observations. First, the first version of the article used British not American English ("centre", rather than "center", but I didn't check much further). That has to be balanced against the US title ("American Revolutionary War", rather than "American War of Independence"). Bertdrunk is right to point out that there were (at least) two sides to this conflict, and it is as much part of British history as it is American history, so there is no automatic TIES claim. It may be worth trying to remove a few of the pinch points if possible (I swapped out "theatre" for "war"), and there are synonyms available for harbour (port, etc) that can be used in places to remove what's may be seen as odd notes. – The Bounder (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

How in the world can this be considered a good article when it fails good article criteria numbers 3 and 4 on its face. This article is not broad in its coverage at all, For example John Paul Jones is not even mentioned in the body of the article, not once! It also completely omits virtually all reference to major naval actions that occured outside of the eastern coast of North America. This was a global war, major naval actions occured in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranian Sea, the Caribbean Sea, and other areas. In fact most of the naval actions that occured during the war occured in the Caribbean and parts of the Atlantic Ocean not covered in this article. Some of the most decisive naval battles of the war are blatently omitted, such as Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1780). The Battle of the Saintes, perhaps the most important naval action of the entire war, is only mentioned in passing. The exploits and fate of the Continental Navy are also practically absent, for example nothing is mentioned as to how virtually all of the Continental Navy's major warships were hunted down and destroyed by the Royal Navy. This article clearly is not broad in its coverage and as a result presents a distorted biased part of view that makes it fail criteria number 4 as well.XavierGreen (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've turned down an EditProtected request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War to put a British English template in an EditNotice on this article.  I see at least one thread of MOS:ENGVAR-related dispute above.  While WP:RETAIN applies as a default, people are apt to make US "strong national ties" arguments, and if consensus went that way it would trump RETAIN.  If I've ever seen an ENGVAR matter that should probably be a WP:RFC, it is surely this one.  It might well conclude to retain BrEng, but it's a discussion that needs to happen, not one that should be prevented by labeling the article with a template that can't be edited by regular users.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War? I think this should be called either American Revolutionary Naval Campaignor something similar? Suggestions? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Well the naval battles were part of separate campaigns and theaters. We really should have one overarching article for the Caribbean Theater for example and another for the European Theater.XavierGreen (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed; interesting enough there was this article but it has vanished or has been renamed on wiki. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this article should merge with France in the American Revolutionary War? The detail has the same and is never clear where the Naval battles are - ie is this just Atlantic? then in that case it should include Spain and the Dutch Republic. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The American Revolution describes the revolution of the 13 Colonies in the Revolutionary War. Therefore, Cuddalore should be on here, despite it's location. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)