Talk:HMS Canopus (1798)

HMS Canopus (1798) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 30, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that HMS Canopus (pictured) served for less than six months for the French Navy, and then for 89 years for the Royal Navy?

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Canopus (1798)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Thu usual capitalization of "in Ordinary"

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Link to the ranks of Captain, Rear Admiral and Vice Admiral. What's a mooring hulk?

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'll review this tomorrow.

Done. I have one further question though. Not sure of the consensus you guys have on this, but would it be good to redirect French ship Franklin (1797) to this, seeing as how it's the same ship? Not sure if the separate articles are justified, especially since this one explains the French career anyway. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd merge the other article into this one with a redirect. Especially since she was so briefly in French service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

number of guns

Suggest the article should be editted to describe Canopus as an 80 gun ship. It currently describes her as an 84 gun ship, which was her rating after 1817 (when the method of rating changed), however she was rated an 80 for her "active" career during the Napoleanic wars, and all the other Tonnant class ships in either French or British service are described as 80 gun ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:192C:FC87:CFE8:F542 (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]