Talk:HMS Roebuck (1774)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. I don't do a lot of age of sail ship reviews, but I have a few comments re: wikification and mainly MOS issues:

in the lead, link Ship of the line

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, link Ship commissioning for Recommissioned

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fifth-rates→fifth-rate ships

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Keel laying for laid down

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the 0 inches in the length and .0 in the depth are unnecessary and could be dispensed with

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Ceremonial ship launching for Launched

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

completed by ~~the~~ 4 August 1775

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the hyphen from "with most of the Roebuck-class" as it is not a compound adjective in this case, given there is no noun

Done. I think that nas the article title is hyphenated, I assumed that to be the style.--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it is done as Roebuck-class ships it is hyphenated as a compound adjective, when it is just Roebuck class it is unhyphenated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I've been looking at. I thought the articles were simply called "Roebuck-class" "Flora-class" etc like First-rate without the 'ship'. Sorry for the confusion.--Ykraps (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link frigate

Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "twenty-two 9-pounder guns" and "12-pounder guns"

Done. Although I was trying to avoid the repetition of the word guns.--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

do we know what ship's boats she had?

I assume you mean, do we have reliable sources stating what boats she had. No, I'm afraid not. The boats mentioned are all sourced but she would have had others too.--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link ship commissioning for First commissioned

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamond is rendered at Hammond a few times

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Ship's tender

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the hyphen from armed-galleys and link galley

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the comma from "14-gun, Carolina State Navy Defence"

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hyphenate "267 strong" as it is a compound adjective

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the comma from "had erected redoubts, and sunk obstructions"

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Billingsport

Done. Although Billing's Point already links to Billingsport, New Jersey.--Ykraps (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Miflin→ Fort Mifflin if that is the correct spelling

Done. I think it was spelled with one 'f' in the source I was working from.--Ykraps (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

space needed "six-day bombardment,the"

Done--Ykraps (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Gloucester, Massachusetts which I assume should be the target

Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there are a few duplicate links; HMS Phoenix, USS Boston, USS Providence, HMS Romulus, HMS Charlestown and Woolwich Dockyard

I can't see repeated links for Romulus and Charlestown, although Boston is linked to both Boston and Charlestown to avoid having to explain that this is the ship captured earlier and now renamed. Is that the issue?--Ykraps (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link privateer at first mention in the body

Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Then, with five ships-of-the-line" which ships of the line were they? I assume the list that follows were not ships of the line? Perhaps replace the colon with a comma if that is the case
No, they weren't the ships-of-the-line. I think I got confused in earlier copyedit which I've now reverted. The five ships-of-the-line were: Russell, Robust, Europa, Defiance and Raisonnable. I didn't name them to avoid confusion of the sort we've just been discussing, and because they weren't relevant; having been sent to New York before the attack.--Ykraps (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could add the ship names as a footnote, if you think that has value.--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is needed. It was just the clarity issue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Edisto River

Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest converting thirty miles

Done. And also added template to "...6 miles from Turkey Point"--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link James Island (South Carolina)

Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Royal Marines for marines

Done--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

make sure you consistently italicise ship names

Done, I think. MOS says ship names should be italicised so let us know if I've missed any.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"passed right through" do you mean through her rigging rather than her hull?

Hmmm, I don't honestly know. I assumed they went through the hull, otherwise the source would say missed or passed by.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Polacca and Brig

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is a space between Note 2 and fn 22

Done--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the comma after "prize money for the frigates"

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the comma after "Roebuck was absent from the fleet"

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hyphenate "weather beaten"

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "a French 64-gun ship of the line" if that is what it was?

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the comma after "captured the French privateer"

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

drop the comma after "After a survey"

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link St Lucia at first mention in the body

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Roebuck was serving in the Leeward Islands"

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Barbados

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Deptford

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Hulk (ship type)

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what is "the Downs"? link?

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

does "Journal of HMS Roebuck, Captain Andrew Snape Hammond" have an OCLC?

Yes. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

same for the second Jones et al. source, Lossing and Simms

Apparently not for Jones and Lossing but Simms has one, which I've added.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lossing is here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Out of interest, what did you search for? Because I entered "A Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution" and got nothing.--Ykraps (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forcing a Passage of the Hudson.jpg needs a US-PD tag

Done--Ykraps (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Sullivans-island-1050x777.jpg we need a date of publication for the US-PD tag

@Peacemaker67: Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for. The painting was done in 1862 according to this[[1]] but I can't see where this information needs to go. There is already a date of death for the artist (1887).[[2]]

The date field should be when the painting was done, not when the image of it was uploaded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dates were the wrong way round so I've swapped as per this diff [[3]] so the date the painting was done shows in the summary.--Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just one licensing thing to do. I've fixed a couple of duplicate links myself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've dealt with that now. See here [[4]]. Ping me if there's anything else. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for doing the review.--Ykraps (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]