Talk:John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent

message: While I am thinking about it, before we nominate this for GA review or FA review, you will need to rewrite and expand the lead according to the recommendations at WP:Lead, so this lead should be at least 2-3 paragraphs. Sadads (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want some date oriented context in the lead, so like "While St. Vincent was commander of the Mediteranean fleet in ... " etc. That summarizes the content of the article better. Sadads (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: In my area there is a disagreement on how to pronounce Cape Jervis, which is named after him. 
How was his name pronounced in the UK in his lifetime, and now? Is it pronounced "Jervis" or "Jarvis"?
Should I take the lack of explanation as an endorsement of the more obvious pronunciation?
Thank you --219.90.217.247 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jarvis is the pronunciation of the admiral's surname, in a similar way the English ways of saying "clerk" is "clark" and "Derby" is "Darby". However, eponymous place names in other countries often end up with completely different pronunciations when the original pronunciation differs from the apparent spelling. Dabbler (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I am a member of the Jervis family. All the Staffordshire Jervises that I have come across pronounce the name to rhyme with "service". People in southern England tend to read the name as Jarvis and no doubt this happened in the 18th century too, hence the nickname "Old Jarvie". However, I suspect that Jervis himself pronounced it as we do. The BBC dictionary is merely reflecting common usage. LynwoodF (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

text: In the Jervis family we say , but Americans are more likely to say , and so this is what you get if you use IPA for English, and is also more or less what is there in the fuzzy photo. (The BBC dictionary I had seen before I made my last comment did not contain the clarification.) The respelt version would be  in either case. The important point is that the name is not pronounced , as so many people seem to think it is. Anyway, take your pick! LynwoodF (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the clarification. On further inspection of the photo, the third character does appear to be a "ɜ", as you have it. (I had thought it was a double-storey "a", which didn't seem to make sense. That's why I gave up and just called it "fuzzy".) I will put this into the article. -- Perey (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Jervis" 

message: *This statement in the section "Early Naval Career": "under one of his patrons Captain Charles Saunders in the Mediterranean".  When did we establish that he had patrons? Who else are patrons? Would he later become his patron?  It confused me a bit. Sadads (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review comments 

message: I've a few minor queries I'd like to raise about this article. I've only been through the second half of it:
*It's a bit unclear with Jervis saying to Calder 'Enough sir. No more of that.' when its not mentioned what Calder was doing that Jervis wished him to stop (counting off the enemy ships). It would make more sense if this were included to give the context of the comment.
*Nelson was indeed not mentioned in the despatch, but this was not due to any anger on Jervis's part for Nelson disobeying orders. With the exception of Calder, who was detailed to take the despatch back home, none of the captains or officers serving under Jervis were individually mentioned. This is attributed to the furore that accompanied Howe's despatch after the Glorious First of June, and the squabbles between those who had not been mentioned etc. Jervis, who disliked having to write despatches anyway, settled it by mentioning none of them. As you've stated later in the paragraph, Jervis was indeed very forgiving of Nelson's actions, and Roger notes that he had in fact acted as Jervis expected him to do, to take the initiative if he saw a good opportunity.
*The sentence 'Sir Robert, as he had become thanks to the battle' is a little obscure. I know what you mean, Calder received a knighthood (though this was customary to the man who brought the despatches about a victory, and not wholly due to his actions in the battle) but it could be made clearer, or omitted here.
*I'd use the full name of an officer at least the first time you use it for clarity. So Admiral Robert Mann and Admiral José de Córdoba, rather than Admiral Mann and Admiral Córdoba.
*The sentence 'This discontent manifested itself at the Nore and at Spithead.' hides the meaning. How did the discontent manifest? In mutiny.
*'ensured that the Mediterranean fleet did not succumb to the greater excesses of mutiny.' What does greater excesses mean here? Greater than offences other than mutiny, like drunkenness? Or a greater form of mutiny, so say the difference between seditious mutterings and armed insurrection?
*Nothing about the negative effects of Jervis's reforms on the dockyards? His zeal almost fatally destabilised them at a time of pressing danger for Britain, and came close to destroying the efficiency he was trying to create. He attacked the old systems, which though they were afflicted with varying levels of corruption, were remarkably efficient and good at what they did. His alienation of civilian contractors was damaging to the navy, as was the loss of morale in the civil departments. Discontent with his policies was widespread with some justification, even naval officers such as Nelson questioned his effectiveness.
*'Another curious shackle that came with promotion to first lord of the Admiralty was that St Vincent was inundated with letters from aspiring officers and their relatives and friends. The art of soliciting employment from those in positions of influence in the navy had become almost an art form. The art of rejecting the letters tactfully was an equal art form.' This prose seems like it could be tightened somewhat, and expressed in less flowery tones.
*The account of Jervis's relationship with Cochrane is a little one-sided. The account is correct as far as his promotion to post-captain did not come until after his aquittal for Speedy's loss, but Cochrane was right to think Jervis bore him a grudge, though it was of Cochrane's own making. He and his relatives had pestered Jervis for a long time for employment and promotions for himself and those under his command, and his rebellious and at times disrespectful attitude to his superiors must have rankled with Jervis who was a strict disciplinarian. Maybe a little can be added on this, especially St Vincent's response 'the First Lord of the Admiralty knows no must'?
*Can the list-like sections 'Further honours' and 'Legacy' be turned into more flowing prose?
Benea (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you comment the overall balance of the article, considering that it is extensively sourced to an author who knew the subject and was apparently well-disposed to him? Magic♪piano 00:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through this I think this is actually quite a serious issue. It's heavily based on Tucker with little other biographical detail brought in. Jervis, despite his stature, does not have the wealth of biographical material that say Nelson has, but there are a number of smaller and more recent biographical sketches out there that would serve to put his achievements in a more balanced context. The ODNB and Tracey's collection of naval biographies are two such examples. I think this has given an overly favourable and uncritical light to some of Jervis's acts, particularly his dockyard reforms, and his forays into politics. Lavery's 'Nelson's Navy', and Roger's works on the navy of the period would be extremely useful here to assess their reception and overall effect. Did the reforms ultimately succeed? How drastic and change were they? How did the navy cope with the changes while they were taking place? How long did it take, were the effects lasting, etc? Jervis's relationship with Cochrane is another well known and often recorded episode, but while the picture here is of an unfounded grievance on Cochrane's part, Thomas's and Cordingly's biographies add more detail, that Jervis certainly did not speed Cochrane's appointment to a ship, and had to be brought under considerable pressure from Cochrane's powerful relatives. I think this article could benefit from a wider reading around the sources. Jervis is mentioned and discussed in a lot of the works on the navy in the period, and these could be used to move the article away from its current dependence on the older texts. Benea (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice that there appears to be a lack of dedicated 20th-century biographies, which to some extent justifies a fairly pervasive use of 19th-century sources.  However, I found this; presumably there are other such works that might provide some balance.  I'm not sure the issue of balance is bad enough to scuttle the GA candidacy (the article is certainly broad enough in its coverage, and does present some of his warts), but I'd certainly push harder on this at ACR or FAC. Magic♪piano 14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a historiography section based on an indices published in 2004, that seems to identify modern scholarship, if their really is any. Feel free to contact me if you have questions, Sadads (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

text: When it came to the battle of Cape St. Vincent I thought, as the article was already running to an enormous length, that I would let the main article serve as an adequate description of the battle. I kept in a couple of highlights that I felt showed Jervis' character and kept in the detail about the various awards and rewards he received because I felt that they showed the mood of the government and people and the relief at a victory. Should you feel it might add an element that I have missed, I would be grateful for any inclusion you might want to make to the article. All the best, Corneredmouse (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points 

message: The term Victualling was part the official title of the Victualling Board that supplied the Navy with food. Victualler was also the term used for the supply ships that served the blockade fleet off Brest. Sutler was the equivalent term for army suppliers, but that was not used by the Navy. I don't think that we should use sutler here but maybe adjust the definition of Victualler in Wikipedia. Dabbler (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I was just trying to remove the disambig for victualling. Thanks, guess I'm just not that with it today. Corneredmouse (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Victualler, not Sutler

message: Substituted at 20:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Is the lack of a period after St a typo found throughout the article or the actual spelling? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling given is correct, as the final letter of the abbreviated word has not been omitted. LynwoodF (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Vincent, not St. Vincent? 

message: Under the heading "Resumption of command" the first sentence reads "On 9 November 1805 St Vincent was promoted admiral of the red" (emphasis added). No explanation is given as to what "Admiral of the red" means. Can anyone disambiguate this? Bricology (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bricology the wikilink to the article that I have added should suffice.SovalValtos (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Admiral of the red"?