Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Action of 13 January 1797

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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 27 December 2008 [1].

---

Action of 13 January 1797

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk)

An article on a minor but infamous naval action of the French Revolutionary Wars in which two British frigates (commanded by the ubiquitous Sir Edward Pellew) managed to destroy a much larger French ship of the line, killing over 900 people. I created the article from scratch a few months ago and since then it has passed GA and had a military history wikiproject peer review. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had, but somehow I neglected to thank User:Rama for his assistance with French ships, officers and sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support — wonderfully written, it was a joy to read through this article and be engrossed in how two Davids force a Goliath to its knees. It covers well the battle, how it came about and how it ended. I did a bit of tweaking, and do have some queries but I do not think they substantially affect the quality of the article.

• "Indefatigable was a razee, one of the largest frigates in the Royal Navy, having been cut down to 44 guns from 64 in 1795. This reduction was intended to make her fast and powerful enough to catch and fight the largest of the French frigates. Indefatigable was armed with 24-pounder cannon on the main decks and 42-pounder carronades on the quarterdeck, giving her a stronger armament than any equivalent French frigate."

Is it possible to rework this (the "guns" seem wanting to be joined together)? For example, "Indefatigable was a razee, one of the largest frigates in the Royal Navy redesigned in 1795 to make her fast and powerful enough to catch and fight the largest of French frigates. Armed with 24-pounder canons on the main decks and 42-pounder carronades on the quarter deck, she had a stronger armament than any equivalent French frigate, even after being reduced from 64 guns to 44." (My example may sucketh).

Your example is fine and I can incorporate it into the article, but I'm not clear on what your objection to the previous version is, can you explain a little more?

Not an oppostion, a quibble: I just think the original sentences split apart the ideas that concerned the guns, instead of consolidating them in a single region. Like I said, a mere quibble. Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I have placed your version in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• A map of the pre-fight (geography of the bay and positions of the combatants) would be nice.

It certainly would. The only trouble is that the only map I have found (and it is of the aftermath of the action) is still within copyright in a book I have and I'm not convinced of its accuracy (its scale is definately serverly exaggerated). I will keep looking and see what I can turn up.

Further to this point, if you look at the co-ordinates at the top of the page, they give a decent impression of the situation, with the tag situated at the point Droits de l'homme struck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Although Pellew knew the use of lower deck guns on the ship of the line was restricted, he was not aware that the French ship was totally unable to open her lower deck gunports during the action: an unusual design feature had the ports 14 inches (36 cm) lower than was normal and as a result the sea poured in at any attempt to open them, preventing any gunnery at all from the lower deck and halving the ship's firepower."

Is this critical to the article, since Pellew obviously took the risk (belief) that Lacrosse would not use his lower deck cannons?

It is important that the French ship was unable to use her lower deck guns, because had she been fully equipped, she could have certainly blown Amazon to matchsticks and would probably have done the same to Indefatigable. I'm not certain what your are suggesting: are you saying it should be removed?

I was wondering how important it would have played to the situation at hand. After all, Pellew took the chance, thinking that Lacrosse did not dare to use his lower guns, so whether or not Lacrosse could open his lower deck guns seem to be moot (and the explanation can be taken away without hurting the article). However, like I stated above, this is not opposable and could be considered an interesting piece of information in the article. Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it for now, although I see your point. I'll think about ways to make it more relevant.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why was Lacrosse commended for losing a ship of the line to two smaller frigates? After all, if he engaged them right at the start, he might have won or chased them off. Were his superiors that understanding of the situation?

Hmmm, I may rephrase this slightly, because I don't think he was commended for losing the ship, he was just not completely blamed for its loss and was able to continue his career in the Navy. I'm afraid I'm not 100% certain of the exact aftermath of this particular engagement within the French fleet (it may well be that this disaster was to a certain extent swallowed by the much greater disaster of the campaign as a whole).

That be all, great job! Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and comments. I have answered them as bes I can here and in the article and if you have any replies or feedback they would be welcome.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support; another wonderfully written article by Jackyd101. A couple of comments, however.

• Sources looks good.
• Images check out.
• Grammatically, I'm not sure if I'm write, but could the following sentence be structured a bit different; Having used all the cannon balls available, over 4,000, Lacrosse was forced to use shells against the frigates.. I.e. either using em dashes between "over 4,000" and the words before and after it, or writing the word out. The multiple commas comes off as difficult to read when skimming over it (although, it's not a major issue).

Rephrased.

• Are there any clear conversions for the measurement of gun caliber? I.e. converting "42-pounder" to millimeters.

I will look into this. The "42 pounder" designations were official names, (like 7.5 cm PaK 40 or similar) and are never translated into other measurements in histories, even modern ones. However I will have a go and see what happens.

Thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One last thing; cannonball wikilink should be disambiguated. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It needs to link to Wiktionary [2] but I can't remember how to do this. Can someone point me in the right direction?

Thankyou very much for the review and the support, very much appreciated. Any more comments please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: A great read, some minor points for consideration:

• "The war that would result would, it was hoped..." The repeated "would" is a bit ungainly. Could it be: "It was hoped that the resulting war would..." etc?

rephrased

• "de Galles was hoping to sail..." sounds a bit casual. Perhaps "planned to sail" would be stronger?

rephrased as suggested.

• The long sentence beginning "The British Channel Fleet normally maintained..." has a slight contradiction in it. First, it appears that the squadron was driven involuntarily off shore by the gales. But then you imply that this move resulted from Colpoys' concern that the ships migh be wrecked on the coastline. I wonder whether the second part of the sentence is really necessary?

rephrased, hopefully this is better.

• Is this repetition avoidable: "...the Raz de Sein. The Raz de Sein..." ?

rephrased to channel.

• The section heading "Failure of the expedition" is a bit cryptic. Pellew was on a mission, too. Shouldn't this be "Failure of the French expedition"?

Renamed.

• Another slight contradiction. "Pellew knew that the ocean was too disturbed to allow Lacrosse to open up her lower gun ports without the risk..." etc. A bit further on: "Although Pellew knew the use of lower deck guns on the ship of the line was restricted..." Not the same thing; the two statements need harmonising.

This came up before, but my solution obviously wasn't adequate. Rephrased.

Finally, such a good story could do with a slightly more arresting title, don't you think? "Action of 13 January 1797" doesn't suggest a naval battle, or anything remotely exciting. Does the engagement have any other name in official naval history?

I felt this too, but there really is no agreed name for the battle in British histories. The French call it Naufrage du Droits de l'Homme, but this title (like the possible Pellew's Action) I felt was too one sided. For the moment, this is probably the best solution.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your review and comments, very much appreciated. If you think of anything else please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment/question. You state that " against expectation, the frigates successfully outmanoeuvred the much larger French vessel . . ." Would one not expect frigates to outmanoeuver (although not outfight) ships of the line? Kablammo (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, changed.

Support. Very compelling writing. Mahan compares the "trained and disciplined" British crews to "French ships, crowded to repletion with men for the most part unaccustomed to the sea", and provides some other details in his short account. Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1892), The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812, vol. I, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, pp. 358–59. My support is not conditioned on use of that source but you may wish to consult it to see if Mahan’s observations are useful. Kablammo (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested in looking at that sourse however for some reason I cannot access the book through the link you gave me. I will see if I can get hold of it in hard copy but will not be able to look properly until after the Christmas period. Thankyou for your review and support, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you the pages. I hope you can find the book; it is a classic, and the source of this famous quotation:

The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon its history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. I will read the source carefully and see if I can incorporate it into the text (it may be a couple of days, I'm going away this weekend).

Support. Wow. I was riveted by the writing, and I learned a great deal about a small part of British/French naval history. I don't have anything to add that those above haven't already mentioned. Looks good to my untrained eye. Good luck. Chasingsol (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review — To make this FAC complete...

• File:Droits de lHomme sinking.jpg — source is provided (albeit archived, Grovesnor updated their site and removed this from their catalogue) and date as well (sourced to NMM, as it is unlikely the painting was done before the battle). PD due to 70 years beyond author's death is appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• File:Edward Pellew.jpg — source, date, and PD are appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• File:Vaisseau-Droits-de-lHomme.jpg — source, date, and PD are appropriate. I uploaded a better picture and informaiton from a more reliable site. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• File:Jean-Baptiste Raymond de Lacrosse.jpg — problems: source of image file is known, but the source does not state date of picture or who drew it. This is not a photograph where we can reasonably say that an unknown photographer has likely died. This is a sketch or trace, and could be drawn by a present day artist (thus failing the 70 years beyond author's death). Can the date information be traced? Failing that, I think the image can be removed from the article without harm. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can say without fear of inaccuracy that the Lacrosse image is PD: it is very similar in style and execution to contemporary sketches. However I cannot prove that it is PD because I cannot work out who drew it. I am still trying but if I cannot identify the artist I guess it will have to be removed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I spent some extensive time over the past few days looking for any indication as to which artist created this portrait. Despite digging through numerous French language websites, I have been unable to find anything. The subject of the portrait was certainly very famous in his time, he appears all over the place. I found out everything else you could possibly want to know about him, except who the heck did his portrait! Ah well, I tried. --Chasingsol^(talk) 13:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I too have been digging (and asking other users who know French history of the period) but so far no luck. I have emailed the webmaster of the page the image comes from but so far no reply. Merry Christmas!--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same image? here; JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Its similar, but not the same. Its of the same guy though and appears to have been made in 1835 which would make it PD. Would this be an acceptable image?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that the Jean-Baptiste Raymond de Lacrosse.jpg was found in a book, which could either be Delgrès, ou, La Guadeloupe en 1802 or one of the books listed at Marine library (another page for reference). The key is to find a date for the picture (authors can be ignored if there is proof the picture was published before 1923). If the date cannot be found, then it would be wiser to leave this picture out. For the eBay picture, it is a lithogram by Maurin on 1835, so it would be acceptable as PD. The image is a little bit small though (though still suitable). If uploaded and used, it would be wise to webcite the ebay page for reference. Alternatively, a samaritan could buy the lithogram, scan it, and upload it in full glory to Commons (heh). Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded and inserted the new image, although it looks a bit strange and I'm not sure why, of anyone can help with sizing the image it would be appreciated. I'll get on the webcite thing soon. This should solve the image problem however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.