# Talk:Spanish ship Fenix (1749)

I suspect "Mahan, Arthur T (1898). Major Operations of the Royal Navy, 1762–1783", should refer to Alfred Thayer Mahan but have not edited as that title doesn't appear in his List of Works. Davidships (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it's the same Mahan. The work was available as a stand alone book but also, I believe, formed some part of a six volume series by William James.--Ykraps (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I edited the name in Davidships stead, but I see this as Chapter XXXI of William Laird Clowes' "The Royal Navy: A History" Vol. III as opposed to a standalone title. If Ykraps has evidence of the separate title's existence then the citation is fine, but otherwise I think it would make sense to change the reference accordingly. https://archive.org/stream/royalnavyhistor03clow contains the chapter in question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finktron (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have the book as a stand alone ebook but whether it is available in paper form, I don't know. It is the same as chapter XXXI of Clowes' book.--Ykraps (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"By June, the Gibralter was back in the Mediterranean, serving in the navy's Egyptian campaign,"
The comma implies that in previous duty in the Mediterranean, the ship had not been serving in in that campaign. True? Otherwise, please remove the comma. Tony (talk)  08:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

True. The Mediterranean Campaign began in 1798 and Gibraltar was there in 1795 before having to go to England for repairs, following a storm. She was also in the Mediterranean under the Spanish flag. Fenix, as she was then, was part of a squadron of ten ships of the line sent to collect King Carlos III from Naples in 1759. She was also there, apparently, in 1779, immediately before her capture off Cape St Vincent in January 1780.--Ykraps (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spanish ship Fenix (1749)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Euryalus (talk · contribs) 09:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A great article. I made some minor copyedits and added a bunch of wikilinks, because it was quicker to do that than type them out below. Please revert the copyedits if preferred; they're all minor stuff. 
The article meets the criteria: it is well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral and stable. I do have a few minor suggestions below:


### Lead
First paragraph - could do with more detail of the Fenix period – the first thirty years of operations are presently dealt with in one sentence. Perhaps a line or two of additional summary of the “Spanish service” section?

I've added a couple of sentences. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Second paragraph – inconsistent numbering style – uses  “18” and “twenty-four”. These could both be spelled out per WP:NUMNOTES, as technical terms, but either way the style needs to be consistent.

Done - I think I was trying to avoid using "24s".--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


### Construction and armament
Not necessary for GA, but if you take this further it might be useful to include some context for the dimensions and armament. For example, was this a distinctively large vessel for  its class, and how did it fit within the overall scale of the Spanish Navy at the time? The British 80-guns were particularly bad sailers, and it sounds like this one was as well.

There is some information on this but I'm not sure the sources are reliable. This [[1]] and this [[2]] for example, appear to be self-published.--Ykraps (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ykraps: yes, those might not be ideal sources. But nothing to do here anyway - this was just an idle question. Thanks for taking the time to look these up, just to satisfy my curiosity. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Also not necessary for GA, but if it goes further it might benefit from some explanation on why the Navy kept tinkering with the guns.


### Spanish service
Include her launching here instead of in Construction and Armament, as it opens the service history. Assume we have nothing on her first ten years (1749-59)?

As best as I can make out she remained in Havana after her launch, possibly laid up in ordinairy and her first voyage was to Cadiz in 1759, immediately prior to being sent to Naples to pick up Carlos III. But my Spanish isn't brilliant and the source language is archaic not modern. I've only added what I can be absolutely sure of. --Ykraps (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Sentence:  ”The squadron passed through ...” is quite long. Can this be broken into two after the word “Supplies”?

Done - --Ykraps (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


### The Moonlight Battle
First paragraph opening makes clear this is now a middle-aged and not especially effective vessel, but it needs another point somewhere to explain why we’re being told this here, especially as the next paragraph indicates she is a flagship. As a minimalist suggestion, the current third sentence could begin with something like: “Despite this, she was selected as the flagship of ...”

Quite simply, she was the most spacious (flagships were chosen for comfort). Ive added a sentence to say as much.--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


### British service
The first half of this paragraph should be referenced to Winfield (2007) 1714-1792 p37, not the Winfield (2008) 1793-1814 p.29.
Appreciate our article on the island does this too, but would be good if this article consistently used either “Sint” or “St.” Prefer “St.” But up to you.

Done - --Ykraps (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Third paragraph: Mild syntax issue– “Russell””’s crew or captain briefed Rodney, not the ship itself.

Done - --Ykraps (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


### Invasion of St Lucia
First paragraph: Suggest “Hood’s withdrawal to Barbados as readers unfamiliar with the geography may not otherwise see this as a retreat.
“Ships-of-the-line” vs “ships of the line” – article presently uses both styles?
Perhaps move the initial Tobago assault up one sentence so it is next to the details of the landing at Gros Islet. That way we hear both parts of the French plan, then the Gros Islet response, then what de Grasse did to reinforce the Tobago assault. No worries if you disagree, I just think it might read a little more clearly.

Done - (if I've understood you correctly) Added "to Barbados" and put the attacks on St Lucia and Tobago together. I could only find one unhyphenated ships of the line, which I've hyphenated as the option requiring least work. Unless you have a preference?--Ykraps (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


### Cuddalore
Second paragraph: Bailli de Suffren is a title? Might flow better to use first name.


### Spanish armament
Third paragraph: recaptured 10 of a 16-shop convoy – but these were always French ships? Should this just be “captured”?

No. In an attempt to keep that section concise, I omitted some important information which I've now added. Can you look and see if it makes sense now?--Ykraps (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


### Hyeres
Wording implies Hotham’s resignation was because of the error at Hyeres? Not important if you're happy to leave as is, just pointing out how it might read.

I thought there was some criticism which may or may not have influenced his decision but I can't find anything at the moment. If you allow me a couple of days I'll have a better look, otherwise I'll move that sentence into the following section.--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
No need to add to it, was just curious. In passing, apologies that some of this review reads like FAC-lite instead of GA. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, I am quite happy to receive a thorough review.--Ykraps (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


### Caught in a storm
Wikilink the sail names, where possible (eg. Foresail)

Mildly, I think the sentence re the loss of main topsail gives too much emphasis to this one item as the reason for the lack of maneuverability. But not relevant to this GAN. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Done - --Ykraps (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


### Bruix
The use of HM brig-sloop is inconsistent with the various other ship names which use the HMS shorthand regardless of vessel type.

Done - although I have retained vessel type.--Ykraps (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Not essential, but it would be good to know why Bruix failed, given he was able to assemble so massive a force.

The sources I've checked so far don't seem to offer a reason. One of the roles of the RN was to capture or destroy enemy vessels but this was not a priority of the French navy which was far more concerned with ensuring the safe arrival of troops and supply convoys. To that end, French admirals were often ordered to avoid conflict so perhaps Bruix was faffing about avoiding the British to presrve his fleet for the evacuation. That's original research though! I've got a few more books to check so I may have an answer tomorrow.--Ykraps (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
There is some analysis as to the impact of Bruix's voyage and whether it achieved anything at all but there is no suggestion as to why he failed to reach Egypt.--Ykraps (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


### The rest
(a little more to come, apologies for the length so far) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Made a minor copyedit and wikilinked general chase. Also checked dabs, copyvio tool and gave the images a quick once-over for PD status, and all came up fine. Overall a great article, as usual. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Euryalus Thank you and thank you for taking on the review. I have added a bit about how the two deck Fenix fitted in with the Royal and other navies, as per your suggestion. If you don't think it's an improvement, please remove, I won't be offended. One more thing, do you have an opinion on whether the article should be at Spanish ship Fenix (1749) or HMS Gibraltar (1780)?--Ykraps (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ykraps: no need for thanks, it was an interesting read. The addition is fine by me, might need a bit moe before (say) FAC. And personally, I think HmS Gibraltar given the bulk of the history is post-capture. But I acknowledge there's also a valid argument for the current name. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't oppose a move, I don't think I could make a strong enough case to propose one. The article is currently at DYK so a name change now might complicate things a bit. Thanks for your opinion.--Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)