Talk:Atlantic campaign of May 1794

message: PASS
*1. Is it reasonably well written?
*The article has some minor prose issues mainly to do with the general flow of the writing rather than concrete grammatical errors. I'm passing it as GA quality prose, but I suggest either putting it up for a copyedit or simply asking a good experienced copyeditor to go over it before you take it to FA (if you'd ever want to do that). The lead has improved factually, but I still think that it is a few words too long and could be edited down a bit. Weak Pass
*2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
*It uses a total of five reliable books as references therefore there is no question about the reliability of the sources, although I think that five sources could be expanded upon for an article of such length, about an important historical event. I'm sure there are other books available. So again, I think it's adequate referencing for GA, but I would look into  finding more sources if you'd ever like to take it for FA review. Pass
*3. Is it broad in its coverage?
*No complaints here, its a daughter article of a larger article and contains information that would be expected from such an article including "How and Why it happened" "What happened" and "What happened afterwards". I finished the article feeling that I had a much better understanding of the subject at hand. Pass
*4. Is it Neutral?
*It is as neutral as I'd expect it to be and it's professionally written from a NPOV. Pass
*5. Is it stable?
*Yes, and I don't think further comment is necessary for this one. Pass
*6. Is it illustrated by images where appropriate, and are images used correctly?
*Not an article that requires pictures to be informative, so the ones that are there are great. They are all used fairly with copyright policy in perfect order. I really like the painting at the beginning of the article and it captures my attention, as start images should. Pass
*7. Does it pass GA review?
*I am passing this article on the basis that it is informative and enjoyable to read. The reader gains a good understanding of the campaign without necessarily having to read the other articles. I think it still has a long way to go before FA review with the major issue being the prose troubles. I would get a copyedit from an experienced user, I'm sure that there are plenty who would be willing to help. Personally I put my articles up for Peer Review and then personally ask one of the volunteers in the copyedit section, last time I got great help from user:Marskell. You can also try to put it up at the league of copyeditors, but I've never done that before and I don't know how long it takes. The second issue I brought up was the sources which I feel could be cited better, I like to cite each paragraph so the reader knows where I'm coming from. I'm sure that there have been more books written on the subject, and there really is no such thing as too many reliable sources so there's nothing to lose with looking for more sources. My further suggestion would be to put it up for peer review to get another one or two opinions. So my final judgment is PASS. Good luck on further improving this and any other articles that you're working on or may work on in the future. Best of wishes.--The Dominator (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: Just looking up through the above, I asked the very question about the validity of sources that required registration here.  The consensus among reviewers was that registration is perfectly acceptable, subscription slightly less so.  I'm certainly not aware of a policy against such sources.  WP:RS and WP:V would be the applicable policies and guidelines for such things,  and I certainly can't see any such proscription there.
Presumably, if a library card is needed to access the ODNB, that implies something like JSTOR?  If not in the UK, there's always your own local big building with books in (not Barnes and Noble). Carre (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally found the relevant policy, it's actually a policy on external links so I guess I was sort of half-wrong. --The Dominator (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources requiring registration 

message: *"In an attempt to outweigh the flying squadron..." Can we use something less jargonesque here?
::Do you mean outweigh or flying squadron? It could read "In an attempt to hold off Pasley's squadron . . ." Better?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clearer, and yes, that does read better ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: May 1794

message: Recently several tags have been added to the article claiming that the article requires 1) additional sources for verification and 2) that the article relies solely on one source. Although this is patently untrue (note: the references are at the bottom of the page, and there are more than one) a user has repeatedly added these tags without providing justification here. I am asking that user to a) attach  tags where he feels additional citations are needed and b) acknowledge that there are numerous sources used for verification in this article, including modern scholarship. ((unsigned|Jackyd101}}
:Nevertheless, the chief dependence in this article is on a single, quasi-primary, source, written in 1827. This is unlikely to be ideal; relying upon it presumes that no useful work, either in research or in understanding, has been done since. To ask merely the most obvious question: did James have full access to the French archives? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: William James has been considered one of the most influential sources on naval operations during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars for 180 years. In answer to your question, I believe James had access to some but not all of the French records, but your opinion that James is out of date is totally irrelevant. If you can find academic sources which directly disagree with or criticise James then provide them here and the points of contention can be negotiated. To suggest that heavy use of James indicates a disregard for more modern scholarship is an absurd suggestion given the presence of Gardiner, Rodger and Padfield among the sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what this article needs are modern secondary sources on the battle, whether they agree with James or not. (If they do, so much the better.) They should be cited where, and insofar as, they support him.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So your complaint is that the histories being used are not specific enough? On what do you base this judgement.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, nor did I say so; it is that a single source, 180 years old, is being used for the bulk of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already pointed out that while James is the most numerous source used, many others are alongside him and back him up. You cannot ignore the fact that the article has early C19th sources (James & Tracy), early C20th sources (Jane & Williams) and modern sources (Gardiner, Rodger & Padfield). This would seem to demonstrate that your point here is incorrect.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are coming back to this, but I have added some references from Bernard Ireland, who further backs up the original version of the article and was published in 2000. TO counter your claims above, he says "With so many ships now commanded by political appointeesrather than seamen of proven abilities the authorities could no longer count on their willingness to fight. It was decreed that any captain striking his flag to anything other than overwhelming odds would face the death penalty. To enforce this , the so-call Committee of Public Safety put afloat a political commissar to exercise ultimate authority". He also ascribes the failure of the French harvest in part to "general tumult". This source seems to yet again to oppose your version of events in 1793/94.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: This word should be avoided in general; its (quite precise) actual meaning has been all too often lost in melodrama. Here, it is ambiguous, and misleading in both senses:
*If it is intended to count naval officers resigned, emigrated, or dismissed, it is an underestimate by a factor of about six.
*If it is intended, as it really ought to be, to count those executed, it is an overestimate by an even larger factor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, if you wish to quibble over adjectives then please suggest an alternative word which describes the negative effect that the execution and dismissal of officers by the French government had on the fleet. This negative effect is and has been referenced by both modern and older sources so your assertions that it did not happen are incorrect. Should you possess a source which disputes this then please provide it, preferably here so it can be discussed for incorporation into the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not discussing tone; I'm objecting to the assertion of non-fact: much more than 10% left the service; much less than 10% were killed. And decimated is in any case ambiguous as to which. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word was being used, perfectly legitimately in the fifth sense of meaning on wikitionary: decimate. Since much more than 10% left the service this looks like it would qualify (the officer corps was "decimated" because a majority of of officers left the service, thus "severely reducing" it).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary is a good dictionary: it records what is actually done, as opposed to prescribing what should be done. The actual usage of decimate has resulted in its being nearly meaningless, as here, where the uninstructed reader cannot tell whether we mean a 10% reduction, a 90% reduction, or what; nor whether that reduction is in positions or in lives. Under all the combinations under which decimate has a definite meaning, it is wrong; the one you cite is a mere vague emotional noise, which does not have a truth value because it is not falsifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Decimation]]

message: I recently reverted two internal date links in the article. At the recent FAC, a user internally linked the dates 28 May and 29 May in the lead to the relevant section of the article below. This was reverted by another user as it goes against an MoS rule in place to allow user preferences to work when it comes to dates. A suggestion was then made that perhaps these dates could be internally linked using "(see below)" style parenthesis. Although   my personal preference is for no linking at all, and I could even support the internal links, I accept the precedence of MoS in date linking. What I do not support however is the use of "(see below)" style links. I would actually oppose an FAC or even a GAN for the presence of these because I don't think they look good or are encyclopedic. An article should be well enough written to avoid having big signposts saying "see here" to other sections of the same article (although for interwiki links they are often necessary). In any case, these dates are the titles of their relevant sections and are linked in the navbox below the lead if people are unwilling to read or scroll down to the section. Thus for the time being I strongly believe these dates should remain linked as per the MoS, but without further elaboration (none is needed).--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal date links