Talk:Narcissus-class frigate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article.

Review comments

Lead section/infobox

Introduce Sir John Henslow.

Done.

Link shipyard.

Done.

their Amphion cousins – it’s usual to avoid idioms (see MOS:IDIOM).

Removed.

the Battle of Blaauwberg – consider amending to 'the Battle of Blaauwberg (1806)'. Ditto the other actions/battles in the article if not already dated.

Added dates to lede.

The armament section of the infobox has missing links.

Added where possible.

Only a suggestion, but might it be worth replacing the image in the infobox with an example of a ship from the class, and using the present image elsewhere in the article?

In my opinion the available image(s) of the ships are very poor, so I'd rather keep it as is.

Understood, but is there an image not yet uploaded onto WikiCommons that might be suitable to use? I'll happily upload it if there is one. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, having just had another look, there are no other paintings/images available of any of the three ships.

Thanks, that's fine. AM

1 Design

Link timbers (Lumber).

Done.

I would amend slip to ‘slipway’, as the former has many meanings, and some readers might misread the text.

Done.

because of this – replace this, as it needs to be clearer what is being referring to here.

Reworded.

2 Construction and armament

I would add the date after Peace of Amiens.

Done.

The first sentence could be simplified, as Winfield and Gardner do not need to be mentioned here imo.

I'm demonstrating a difference in opinion between two historians; removing the sources of the dates makes the sentence unclear, leaving the reader to guess which of the two historians cited uses which date.

Understood. AM

You need to be consistent about using Narcissus-class or Narcissus class throughout the article. Ditto other classes named.

The hyphen is adjectival.

Understood. AM

I would add a comma after 24 June 1806.

In my opinion that makes way too many commas in that sentence, but I won't fight the point if you think it necessary?

OK, how about 'Of these new ships only the first—HMS Cornelia—was completed, as the final two ships of the class were cancelled on 24 June 1806, when the shipyard building them went bankrupt.'? Amitchell125 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Went for parentheses.

Looks sorted. AM

well-regarded at sea – by whom? Ditto They were recorded.

Assume the source is the sailing reports mentioned afterwards, but it is not explicitly said as such.

I think the text in both instances would make better sense to readers if it was made clearer who did the well-regarding and the recording. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source is as follows: "She was shorter, although otherwise similar in dimensions; slower than Amphion, the ship was never regarded as among the navy's best sailers, but was weatherly, manoeuvrable and a good sea-boat." Does not explicitly say who these opinions come from; I would assume reports from the crew itself but that would be OR.

Best left then. AM

record the ship - 'recorded the ship' (as the records were made in the past). Ditto note – 'noted'.

Done.

Gardiner suggests – implies his views may be incorrect. As this information is not controversial, Gardiner suggests can be omitted.

Not controversial but could very well be wrong. These are wooden warships we're talking about; just because they were built to the same plans does not mean they turned out the same way or performed in a similar fashion. Strange beasts!

Understood, but the fact that he could be wrong (and why) should be made clear in the text, as it cannot be assumed that readers will know what you have just explained to me. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the source and even Gardiner says that it was "reasonable to assume", so I've backtracked and gone with your original suggestion.

3 Ships

named after Narcissus – who was Narcissus?

Added.

Can we say here (perhaps in the Notes section) why the red-linked captains are notable enough to deserve their own link? Being the captain in the RN alone would not merit linking them. Fraser was an artist (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG27846); Gordon is listed in ‘’Royal Naval Biography’’ (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Royal_Naval_Biography/Gordon,_Alexander); of Croften, there appears to be little information and I would unlink him.

I try to only red link names when I know that I would be able to create their article. Not attempting to demonstrate total notability here, but some highlights:

Fraser was a Commissioner of the Dockyard at Malta and then Gibraltar, and was a Commissioner of the Navy for ten years before becoming a rear-admiral
Gordon went on to become a rear-admiral and as you say has a good RNB entry
Crofton was the son of Anne Crofton, 1st Baroness Crofton and would eventually retire in 1856 as a vice-admiral
Poyntz became a full admiral before his death in 1847, and as with Crofton has an NBD article of use

Understood. (No worries then, now you've got your internet again, let's give you, errr... a week next Tuesday to sort them all out? :) Amitchell125 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Link Jamaica Station.

My bad. AM

Already linked.

Who was Cornelia?

Added.

Who was Doris?

Added.

5 References

Not part of this review really, but...

There is a url available for Clowes (same book, different year - https://archive.org/details/royalnavyhistory05clow).

Actually the same year, IA just gets the date wrong. Added.

There is a url available for Lavery (https://archive.org/details/nelsonsnavyships00lave).

Added.

There is a url available for Winfield 2008 (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/British_Warships_in_the_Age_of_Sail_1817/G2FEBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0).

Added.

There is a url available for Winfield 2014 (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/British_Warships_in_the_Age_of_Sail_1793/Ge8kCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0).

Added.

As Siren and Doris were never built (and have no articles), I can’t understand why they are included in the template. I can remove them if you agree with me this should be done.

They weren't built, but the class was still of five planned ships rather than three, and IMO it's useful to demonstrate even in the template what all the ships related to the class were. Another thing I won't die on a hill for if you think otherwise, though..!

Happy to keep it as it is. AM

On hold

Not many issues here, and the article was an interesting read. I'm putting it on hold for a week until 18 November to allow time for the points raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Pickersgill has asked me to pass along that he is currently without WiFi and thus cannot respond at the moment. (Well, that's what he says. Personally, I suspect that in reality he's finally gotten too deep into British naval history and has gone off to retake Calais or suchlike.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, ask him to find me when he reaches port... Amitchell125 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Whew, take my advice and never move house - it's horrible! Finally got suitable Wi-Fi today, twenty days after the move. I've replied to your comments above. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article, I've added small crosses simply to flag up where there are issues yet to be finally sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

Passing the article now, great work. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]