Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/John Hazelwood

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

John Hazelwood

[edit]
(
)
Commodore John Hazelwood
Commodore John Hazelwood

5x expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

  • @Gwillhickers: The article has been 5x expanded from just over 1000 characters to just below 6500 characters starting on August 23rd. The nomination was on the 29th, putting this within 7 days. Clearly, thus, it is long enough. The article reads neutrally, has in-line citations, and doesn't have any apparent close paraphrasing issues, however, I would suggest the nominator look at the Copyvio review here. There are 3 or so sentences you might want to look into rewording, if you can. The far bigger issue though is that the hook is too long. It is over 200 characters. You'll need to propose a shorter alternative hook. The QPQ is done and the image used is in the public domain and looks fine at the size, so no problems there. It's just the hook that needs fixing. SilverserenC 00:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Did some rewording per your recommendation. Other items are common use or general phrases. Also, here is the shortened hook:
  • ALT1 :... that in 1777 Commodore John Hazelwood (pictured) was recommended by General Washington to command the American fleet on the Delaware River and lead it to safety, doing so with no shots fired by the British navy? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: That's...uh....that's only one character shorter than the previous hook and still over 200 characters. >_>; SilverserenC 18:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren: -- Hmmm.. By my count it's only 195 characters. Are you counting the characters (10) in the word (pictured)? What about trailing spaces? Character counters will count any spaces before and after the hook. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: I was counting the 10 characters in pictured, yes, since it will still be a part of the text line. And I assume the 200 character limit is due to not messing up the format of the DYK section once all of the hooks are put in. Do we normally not count things like "(pictured)" when doing hook characters? I just want to make sure the formatting will hold up. SilverserenC 19:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Approve original nom Okay then. Apologies for the holdup. Your hook is right up on the character line, so I wanted to make sure. You're good to go. SilverserenC 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren: Many thanks for your effort. Just an additional note. I'll be adding a bit more content to the narrative in the next few days, and will be citing it with the same sources. Of course I'll be mindful of para phrases and such. You may want to drop in again and give the article a peek. Again, many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Regardless, the hook is still much longer than it needs to be. I'll see if I can come up with something a bit more concise. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning 'leading the fleet to safety with no shots fired' is the really interesting part of the hook. Mentioning Hazelwood, Washington and the Delaware River are important, as is mentioning the British Navy -- all under 200 characters. If you can demonstrate some pressing issue other than a desire to be more concise, while somehow keeping this information, we can consider it. Otherwise we should keep the approved hook as is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I like using British fleet, but this hook, (at 171 characters) doesn't mention 1777, or that Hazelwood was a Commodore and has a dual reference to the British. Here's an even shorter hook (at 164 characters) that mentions 1777, Commodore and British fleet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
However, I still prefer the approved hook, at less than 200 characters, it also mentions the American fleet on the Delaware River, reads better than all the alternatives and doesn't attempt to compact everything into a truncated sentence. A shorter hook by itself doesn't mean it's a better hook. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"With no shots fired from the British fleet" reads to me like the British refrained from opening fire, when I think the intent, is it not, is to say that that Hazelwood surprised them so that they didn't have time to open fire? Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hazelwood had orders to get the fleet upriver to safety, not to engage the British. 'No shots fired' more than suggests that the British were unaware of Hazelwood's movements or simply were not in a position to do anything. Unless everyone's sound asleep it's sort of difficult to surprise someone with a fleet of slow moving sail ships, etc, even at night. The source doesn't get into details at this point. If we are going to assume anything it would be that, the Delaware at the mouth being a very wide river, Hazelwood made his move, possibly at night, while the British were still trying to get their act together across the river in newly occupied Philadelphia. However, I will look for other content on this idea. Meanwhile, the hook is just a general statement with perhaps an interesting point and some context, all meant to create curiosity and invite the reader to the article where he or she can look into these things as much as is possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be really good if you could confirm the details of this maneouvre for the readers' benefit before we promote this nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
That would be a nice addition to the story, but the hook doesn't require the finer details of Hazelwood's maneuvers at this one point in Hazelwood's overall biography. The hook provides enough details to convey the general episode accurately. i.e.Washington's recommendation, 1777, the American fleet, the British, the Delaware River and Hazelwood's leading of the fleet to safety with no shots fired. The article itself gives insight into British activity, as they were far from securing their position at Philadelphia having just arrived. I'll look for any further material that could shed additional light on Hazelwood's actual 'tactics'. Meanwhile, we should go with the approved hook, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: I have just added "that" to the hooks that didn't have the word. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional notes. @BlueMoonset: Re: The shortest hook: ALT2 is not supported by the sources. We don't know if Hazelwood lead the American fleet 'past' the British fleet. The original hook merely says, no shots were fired by the British navy (who also had positions on shore). This doesn't mean that Hazelwood sailed "past a British fleet" while they just sat there and didn't fire a shot. ALT2 also directly implies that the British and the American fleets were in close proximity. None of the sources say anything about 'where' on the river the British navy was in relation to the American fleet when Hazelwood lead his fleet upriver. We do know however that the British had just arrived and were busy securing their primary objective and position in Philadelphia and largely committed there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just realized that with the addition of the word 'that' to the original hook it was over 200 characters. Did some condensing. The original hook now has only 190 characters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, the whole point behind ALT hooks is that hooks shouldn't be rewritten in place, but are revised by creating a new ALT (fixing formatting like adding a missing required "that" or making sure the parenthesis of "(pictured)" is also italicized isn't an issue). So I've restored the original hook and struck it too, and presented your 190-character condensation below as ALT4 (with a minor grammatical fix):
However, I have just read the source, and I'm confused about the hook. First, so far as I can tell, the fleet in question was the Pennsylvania Navy, of which Hazelwood was the Commodore, so he already commanded it, which may be why this was a recommendation rather than an order. I also have to ask whether Washington was at the convened meeting, or whether he just ordered it to happen. (The word "convene" allows for both possible meanings.) The source says the recommendation came from a trio of other generals and doesn't mention Washington as one of them; do we know that Washington was at the meeting himself? If not, then the hook and article need to be revised because it wouldn't have been Washington's recommendation. (The final paragraph of Military career of George Washington#Loss of Philadelphia says that Washington presided from a distance over the loss of control of the Delaware River to the British, but whether this extended to convening this particular meeting from a distance I don't know. Still, it's important to check.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your indepth analysis. Hazelwood was promoted to Commodore of both the Pennsylvania Navy and the Continental Navy in 1777, before the Siege of Fort Mifflin. As Commodore he engaged the British in a number of battles and skirmishes before the fort was captured on November 15. As the article explains, two days after forts Mifflin and Mercer fell, Washington called a meeting with his top commanders in a War Council which met on one of Hazelwood's ships upriver where it was secured by American forces. It would be a big assumption to think Washington, whose headquarters was in nearby Whitemarsh, called a War Council with his top commanders and didn't bother to show up. The others in the council also made the recommendation, but as head of this council we can't just assume Washington wasn't on board with the recommendation. The hook simply says that Washington made the recommendation and can't get into all the details. Imo, we don't need to find a source that spells out the idea that Washington was present at his own meeting, and that he individually made the recommendation also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, let's take a look at the ALT4 hook, and I'll explain my reasoning. We both want a hook that won't be challenged after it's been approved and promoted to prep. Given Washington's proximity to Hazelwood's location, it's certainly possible, even likely, that he was at that Council of War, but the source does not place him there, and that's what we have to go by. Here goes:
  • was recommended by General Washington to command the American fleet on the Delaware River: when I read this, I interpret it to mean that Washington recommended Hazelwood for the post of commanding the American fleet on the Delaware river. So far as I can tell, this isn't the case—Hazelwood already had that command. Indeed, the article says nothing about Washington recommending Hazelwood for his command, nor does the source. Three generals at the Council of War on the 18th (the article's "two days later" and "November 20" add up to it occurring on the 22nd, which is clearly not correct) recommended that Hazelwood take his ships upriver past the British at the first opportunity presented by favorable winds, but the source does not explicitly mention Washington as recommending it—commanding generals frequently do not even vote at a Council of War according to the CoW Wikipedia article—and to say in Wikipedia's voice that Washington himself did recommend this course to Hazelwood without a source saying so is ultimately OR.
  • and led it to safety with no shots fired by the British navy: the article doesn't mention that no shots were fired (it really isn't the same as "no attempt made by them to stop passage", since you can still try to kill a few of the enemy even if you can't stop their passage), and if you want that fact in the hook the article wording needs to be amended, which shouldn't be an issue because it's in the source. You can certainly say no shots were fired by the British navy if you wish, since the British forces fired no shots at all, army or navy.
So the ALT4 hook doesn't hold together. The same problem is true, to a greater or lesser extent, in the other ALTs, which all have some version of Washington recommending Hazelwood for command. (I've struck them all.) I believe that the following hook, based on ALT3 and 200 characters, is backed up by sourcing; please let me know if it works for you. (If the word "upriver" is deemed disposable, that would take it down to 192.)
It would be a simple logical deduction to say Washington, as a council member, was behind the recommendation. It would be sort of reaching, OR even, to assume otherwise if the source didn't say so. If Washington was in disagreement with his own council and actually didn't want Hazelwood to lead the fleet, the reliable source would have mentioned this important distinction. You seem to be assuming that Washington was not at the meeting, which would be OR, and then have used this to substantiate the notion that Washington perhaps never made any sort of recommendation at all, which is again OR. However, you've come up with an ALT I can live with here, as it implies that Washington, as a member of the council, was behind the recommendation as well. Nice. ALT5 is GTG, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do we need to know that "a Council of War convened by George Washington recommended that ... "? That's the sort of detail best left to the article. It's completely inessential to the central hook fact, which is that Hazelwood successfully took the fleet to safety past the British. Hooks are supposed to be short and punchy and easy to read, not full of extraneous details that make needless demands on the readers' attention. I suggest the phrase be dropped altogether and we go with something like:
Otoh, at 177 characters there's no pressing need to remove this important historical context from the hook. Washington's council marked a major turning point in the Revolution, and the phrase fits nicely into the sentence. Also, by removing mention of Washington's council we also remove mention of Hazelwood being recommended. If the reader is interested in the topic he or she will not see this simple historical context as an "extraneous detail". Don't mind condensing some text when necessary, but removing major points of context from the original hook isn't called for if the hook is well under the 200 character limit. Prefer ALT5. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Washington's council marked a major turning point in the Revolution - that is only your assertion, but more importantly, that won't be at all obvious from the addition of the above phrase to the hook so it's still redundant to it. Apart from which, lots of commanders get their jobs from being recommended to their posts, so it simply isn't conveying any useful information in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you won't find anyone half familiar with the American Revolution not seeing the fall of Philadelphia and forts Mifflin and Mercer as a major event, if not a turning point. -- Besides, we are not saying anything about a turning point. If we clip mention of Washington's council we also have to clip mention of the recommendation. Also, by simply mentioning Washington, we draw that many more viewers to the article. Again, at well under 200 characters in ALT5, there's no reason to continue deliberating over an argument that's already been addressed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I'm not quite sure why you say the ALT5 hook is "well under 200 characters in ALT5" when it's exactly 200 characters (starting with "that" and including all spaces and the final "?" but excluding " (pictured)", which is the rule for counting DYK hook length). I had quite a time keeping it within bounds; as I originally noted, it could be 192 if "upriver" was deemed disposable. I am sympathetic to your desire to keep Washington in the hook to draw eyes. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies to both you and Gatoclass. I was experimenting with other hooks and must have counted the wrong one. In any case, yes, mentioning Washington will not only 'hook' many of the readers but it will also convey the idea that Hazelwood was an important Commodore and among the most famed navy people of that era. I came up with one more alt, with only 180 characters.

ALT7 ... that in 1777, George Washington's war council recommended that John Hazelwood (pictured) lead the American fleet up the Delaware River to safety and did so with no shots fired by the British?

I'd like to add Commodore to the hook, adding 9 characters, but can live without its inclusion I suppose. I'm hoping the shorten hook along with its simple, yet important, historical context will appeal to the casual reader as well as the inquisitive history buff and student. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • New reviewer needed to check the remaining ALT hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems this template, almost four weeks old, has taken up more than its fair share of space on the nomination page, discussed at length, and at this point I'm perfectly willing to let the administrators in charge decide which hook is the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT7 isn't grammatical, it effectively reads: "Washington's council recommended [something] and did so with no shots fired by the British". Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"Something"? The hook clearly says that "...Washington's war council recommended that John Hazelwood (pictured) lead the American fleet up the Delaware River..." Nothing ungrammatical about that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I reduced the intermediate phrase to a simpler form in order to highlight the ungrammatical structure. The sentence basically says that Washington's war council managed to recommend something without attracting fire from the British, when the intention is to say that John Hazelwood took the fleet up the river without attracting fire. Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, would adding a "he" (and a comma) solve this problem—"to safety, and he did so"—or are there other issues with the ALT7 hook? If not, here's ALT7a:
'He' is not needed as it's understood that Hazelwood was the one recommended to lead the fleet. The comma is also not needed as it precedes the word 'and', but I can live with or without the added comma if anyone's insisting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Relying on Silverseren for the main DYK criteria, I am approving ALT7a. I have no view on whether the comma is necessary, but I think the "he" should be included because as Gatoclass has mentioned, the subject of the first half of the hook is the war council. This is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT7a, but still see close paraphrasing in the article:
  • Source: His gunboats and galleys engaged British men-of-war 23 October near river obstructions; and, after the British frigate Merlin and ship of the line Augusta grounded, their crews were forced to burn them.
  • Article: Hazelwood's gunboats and galleys continued to engage British men-of-war on October 23, near river obstructions; and, after the British frigate Merlin and ship of the line Augusta grounded, their crews were forced to burn them.
  • Source: In recognition of his services in the War for Independence, the Continental Congress voted him a handsome sword
  • Article: In recognition of his services in the War for Independence, the Continental Congress voted him a handsome silver and gold enameled sword
  • Source: was appointed to superintend the building of fire rafts
  • Article: He was appointed to superintend the building of fire rafts
  • Yoninah (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Thanks for looking out. The three items have been reworded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks! Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review and moving this to the main page (finally)! Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_Hazelwood&oldid=878520730"