Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Charles Dashwood (Royal Navy officer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dashwood (Royal Navy officer)

Nominator(s): Pietje96 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it just matches the criteria Pietje96 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, welcome to Milhist ACR. Good work so far. I had a quick look and made a few tweaks (please check that you are happy with those). I also have the following suggestions:

"File:The 'Defence' at the Battle of the First of June, 1794.jpg": this file is lacking author and date information and currently lists its source as Wikipedia. The source will need to be changed to the book or website from where it was originally downloaded prior to being uploaded to Wikpedia;
- the image has been removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Engelske flåde ud for København august 1807.jpg": probably needs a copyright tag based on the art work, not the photograph that was taken of the art work;
it might be beneficial to see if someone is willing to copy edit the article, as some of the wording seems a bit awkward. The Guild of Copy Editors is currently holding a blitz, so you might be able to secure someone's services by posting here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests;
- improved. Pietje96 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've taken a run through it myself, too. Please check that you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the lead probably should be expanded to at least two paragraphs;
- thanks for adding that extra information. If possible, it should be expanded a little more, though to summarise the article in a bit more detail; AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok, done. --Pietje96 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks good. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the size of some of the subsections is very small. The article would probably look more balanced if these small subsections were merged into the larger ones somehow;
- I had a crack at this myself, and merged the Early life section into the one below it. Please review my change. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cool. --Pietje96 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

be careful of capitalisation of ranks. Per WP:MILTERMS ranks should only be capitalised when used as titles, e.g. "Rear Admiral Smith" as opposed to "Smith was a rear admiral";
- fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1 probably should be rewritten slightly as it is not grammatically correct: "He was knighted on 20 April 1825. Grand Cross Tower and Sword on 30 March 1825. Conferred when the King of Portugal went on board HMS Windsor Castle, in the Tagus, in May 1824. Dashwood was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath of Maxwelton in July 1840." (For example "Grand Cross Tower and Sword on 30 March 1825" is not a complete sentence");
- fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what is the thinking behind the duplicated headings "Footnotes" and then "Notes"? I'd suggest deleting the lower level heading "Notes" as it isn't really doing anything;
- this has been fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the inline citations seem inconsistent in style in places. For instance, compare "James & Chamier, p. 159" with "William James & Frederick Chamier, p.129"
- fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
additionally, the inline citation "James & Chamier" is inconsistent with the full entry below which just says "James, William (1837)" (without also mentioning the second author);
- fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
same as above for "Clarke & McArthur, p.249" v. "Clarke, James (2008)" (without mentioning the full details of the second author). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, be careful with using terms like "highly efficient" as this is really just an opinion and sounds less than neutral. If an author or a superior described him as such, that is fine, but then you would be best presenting it so as to provide attribution. For example, "Dashwood was described by historian John Smith as a highly efficient officer..." AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed. --Pietje96 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please try to avoid using contractions like "couldn't" etc. as encyclopedic writing does not really use these. (policy guidance at WP:CONTRACTION);
- fixed. --Pietje96 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"While commanding HMS Franchise frigate of 36 guns (that he held from 21 October 1805 until January 1810)" --> it might be better to put the "that he held from 21 October 1805 until January 1810" into a note like the others (currently labelled a, b and c);
- done. --Pietje96 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the inline citations: "James & Chamier, p.28, Vol IV": but there is no James & Chamier Vol IV in the bibliography below (there appears to be a Vol II by those authors, though);
- done. --Pietje96 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the inline citations: "Clarke & McArthur, p.249" : which volume: 14 or 28?
- fixed. --Pietje96 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the inline citations: "Clarke & McArthur, Vol 17, p. 255", but there is no volume 17 listed in the bibliography. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed. --Pietje96 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the quote at the end of the American War of Revolution section doesn't really seem that pertinent to the narrative. I'd suggest just removing it;
- Ok, done. --Pietje96 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the infobox says service years 1779-1843, but his retirement is not discussed in the body of the article. Can you add a short sentence to the Later service section outlining when he retired and also when he died (currently the date appears in the lead and infobox, but not in the body).
- The infobox was wrong. Fixed. --Pietje96 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
extra bibliographic information such as publishers, locations and ISBNs/OCLC numbers could be added to the works in the bibliography. These are generally expected at A-class and can usually be found at worldcat.org. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed! --Pietje96 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cheers, those changes look good. I've added a few extra details for the bibliography and added my support for promotion of this article to A-class. Good luck with the rest of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your effort improving this article. Greetings Pietje96 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would like a picture in the infobox.
Rank questions
- 'being appointed as a midshipman'
- 'appointed as a junior lieutenant'
- 'employed as master's mate'
I'm almost positive Royal Navy officers were not appointed -. Ratings were also not appointed or employed - he probably was mustered at other ratings than Midshipman so I would use a different wording.
- As an aside, I'm always grateful for finding examples of Master's Mate-> Admiral!
Its unusual to me he was 'acting as aide-de-camp', was that the exact wording in the source?
- Also acting aide-de-camp probably implies an honor like acting lieutenant (which is possible). In this case he probably was just 'acting as his servant' (as indicated by the lemonade story).
- Above 'a junior' lieutenant - I don't think this is correct and the source doesn't support this - he was mustered as midshipman, and there no rank of 'full lieutenant'. Kirk (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would include his squadron in the admiral promotion path ('of the Blue'); I was unclear about his final rank since he was posthumously an Admiral (yelllow?) Kirk (talk)
During the course of the engagement, Dashwood had to lash the fore top-sail yard which had been shot in the slings, to the cap, whereby the ship was enabled to wear in pursuit of the enemy. - I can't find this in the reference at the page. I'd work on the phrasing since this is jargon-filled.
appointed commander - not what the source says. He bought a ship and was the master. Kirk (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citations need some work: volume IV of James & McArthur isn't there, and James & Charmier appears to be duplicated other than one has a page #.
HMS Defiance needs a link. Kirk (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article was put up for GA after this ACR was initiated. I'm the reviewer and I have not received any response to my comments. Once those are answered, I'll be happy to let this review proceed on its own merits. GA is certainly not a requirement for ACR, but it's damn confusing to reviewers when a lower level of review (GA) is initiated after a high one like A class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I sympathise with Storm's position; while I've had tandem GANs and ACRs on the same article myself in the past, I ceased the practice some time ago and do not recommend it, preferring to get GAN out of the way first and then initiate ACR.
For that reason, I'm just going to note here while I think of it some concerns with the lead:
- Firstly, for the size of the article, I think another paragraph's worth of detail could be added to properly summarise it.
- Secondly, peacock terms like "distinguished", and especially "prestigious", should be avoided.
Feel free to ping me for further review/comments when the GAN is over with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I agree that the best thing would be to address Sturm's GAN points and get through that nomination first. I started reviewing for ACR but after I had noted a few things I went and looked at the GAN comments Sturm made, and we are very much on the same page. Experience shows that getting through the wider community lens of GAN before going to ACR is of value to an article and smooths what can be a pretty torrid process at times. I would not support this article here while no attempt has been made to address Sturm's GAN points. On top of that, it is a respect thing. He's bothered to review, but no response has been made at all?
I'm happy to look at it again when the GAN review has run its course. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.