Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Grand Port/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:29, 13 September 2009 [1].

---

Battle of Grand Port

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Grand Port/archive1

This article covers a battle fought between British and French frigate squadrons in 1810 during the Napoleonic Wars. Due to catastrophically poor decision making on the part of the British commodore, the British squadron was completely destroyed in the worst defeat the Royal Navy suffered during the entire war. The article has passed a GA review, a MilitHist A-class review and recently had a MiltHist peer review. It is also part of the Mauritius campaign of 1809-1811 good topic. One slightly unusual aspect of the article is the appearance of a large, high-resolution portrait of the battle - I have canvassed other editors as to the appropriateness of this image (which I rather like), and have received a mixed response, so I'm interested in what people have to say here. Jackyd101 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text is done; thanks. The alt text needs work. Please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page.

• The alt text is mostly just a duplicate of the caption. It needs to be rewritten so that it (a) does not duplicate the caption and (b) describes useful visual appearance that can be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions (though that example alt text is a bit long).
• Many flag icons have no alt text. Most of these can simply add something like "alt=France" since they are icons for their countries. A few should instead add "|link=" because they are next to text that already identifies their countries and are therefore purely decorative. See WP:ALT #When to specify.

Eubulides (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand this new requirement, but I've had a go. How is it now?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Still needs a bit of improvement (it's frustrating, I know!). Basically, alt text is like describing what a picture looks like to a friend over the phone. Take the "Scuttling of Sirius" image. Most readers would not know what the Sirius looks like if you told them "HMS Sirius in flames"; you would just tell them "ship in flames". In short, pretend as if you have never seen the images before and you had describe them. I hope that clears it up a little bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on this over the weekend.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Any better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Better, but still needs work. "Map of Île de France" merely repeats the caption (which is not recommended; WP:ALT #What not to specify) and doesn't convey any useful information to the visually impaired reader. "French ships are in blue, the British in red." is fairly-useless irrelevant detail and should be removed; likewise for "High resolution painting". (See WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples.) Several phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert reader who looks only at the images, and should be reworded or removed; these include "of the Battle of Grand Port", "A photograph of Grand Port in 2007," "the memorial to the battle", "on the Arc de Triomphe". The flags are all purely decorative, and should use "|link=" as per WP:ALT#When to specify. There is no need to repeat the alt text of the battle painting; the detail's alt text should list just details that are obvious there but not in the main painting, to avoid repetition. Generally speaking, alt text should not repeat anything's that in the caption, and proper names in particular shouldn't be in alt text (unless the image itself verifies them). Eubulides (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally wrote out a list of about 25 seperate things that I don't understand from what you wrote above, but I felt that might seem a bit obtuse just to stick down here. Can you link to a page which explains this for people with a low tolerance for technical stuff? I've tried looking at some of the other articles here at FAC, but I don't really see the difference between them and this, so I'm still confused. As an example: could "Map of Île de France" be better written as "Map of large brown island in a light blue sea" or is this wrong? I'm really not trying to be difficult, I just can't make head or tail of this requirement (When did it come in?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, after some digging I found Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive39, which explained it much better than WP:ALT. I'll have another go this week but its probably going to be a long process.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I sat down and had a real go at this - let me know what still needs changing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks pretty good now. The map was the biggest problem; its alt text focused too much on irrelevant detail (e.g., the color of the ocean) and not enough on the gist of what the map tells the sighted reader. I tweaked it to fix the remaining problems I saw. Eubulides (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - I was wondering though, why is it irrelevant to tell a blind reader about the medium of the image (i.e. drawing, painting, engraving, photograph etc.). This information is rarely in the caption, and yet it can help a knowledgeable reader determine the era, context and even in some case the style of the image (for example, knowing that an image is an engraving tells me quite a lot about its origin and context, as indeed does a photograph)?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not always irrelevant, and admittedly different editors' opinions differ on this but I'll tell you my opinion. It's a question of cost (adding extra words to the alt text) versus benefit (the useful info the reader can extract from the extra words). We've had feedback multiple times that brief alt text is better for screen readers, so the cost is real. Usually the reader wants to know about the topic in question, not about how the illustration was made. That is, the illustration is a means to the end of understanding the topic, not the end itself. Similarly, the style of the image is often irrelevant to the topic. Obviously if the article is about art, then medium and style are typically the focus of the image and should be mentioned in the alt text; but if the article is about military history, the alt text should be focused on the visual aspects of the image that are relevant to military history. In this particular case, the fact that an image is an engraving may help to date it somewhat, but much more-precise info about the event is already available in the text of the article, so saying that the image is an engraving isn't that useful in this context. (End of personal opinion.) It's not a big deal, and if you feel that this detail is important in the alt text, please feel free to put it back in. Eubulides (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No I'll stick with your version, thanks for the well-reasoned answer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support: Despite a strong interest in history this is not an area I am overly familiar with. However, this article is well written and the story well developed that it makes a very interesting read. While I scoured the article looking for something that could be fixed, I could find nothing. Deserves to be an FA. Apterygial 11:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for you comments and support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Once again, you have written a masterful article on a little known "incident" of the Napoleonic wars. This is an area in which I am familiar, and I can add these additional comments. First, Neatly done contextualizing of the battle. You've nicely set the larger scope of the Indian Ocean campaigns in perspective which, as you know from some of the GA reviews I've worked on, is a top priority. Having set the larger context, you narrow the focus down gradually, which I especially like: while many people have considerable interest and some expertise in the Napoleonic land wars, fewer have some knowledge of the war in the Indian and Pacific ocean theaters. Third, your use of images is entirely appropriate, and yes, you are indeed fortunate to have some high quality images to select from; they enhance the text, and tell the story in their own way, not with all they details, of course, but well enough so that a non-reader, or non English reader, could sort out the general idea.

That said, I have a couple of suggestions and one question:

Question What happened to Lieutenant Morice? How was the message delivered?

Morice broke his leg in several places when he fell from the horse and never fully recovered use of the limb. Although the source does not explicitly state it, the message would certainly have been passed to another despatch rider almost immediately. I have not added this information into the article as a) it seemed an unnecessary diversion and b) there are too many holes in the sourcing to put it as simply as I have done here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you add it, just curious. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

: in "Background"  : "The British response to the French deployment was led by Commodore Josias Rowley, ..." Josias Rowley led the British response to French deployment...?

I've changed this, although the new version is somewhat different than your suggestion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

in "lead": "...French squadron under Captain Guy-Victor Duperré approached the bay nine days later the British commander, Captain Samuel Pym, decided to lure them into coastal waters where his superior numbers could be brought to bear against the French ships... to lure it (squadron).... or is the plural the British version?

I'll have to think about this one and establish which is correct.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here in the US, it would be squadrons=plural verb, squadron = single verb. I don't know where you are in the world. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

in "Attempted withdrawal:"...At 07:00, Lambert notified Pym that he had cleared the reef that separated Iphigenia from the..." The redundancy of "that" is confusing: how about that he had cleared the reef separating

Good point, I will make this change in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

in "aftermath": ".....their courts martial inquiring into the loss of their ships..." inquiry?

In this case and this era, there was (specifically) a court martial held for all of the ship's commissioned officers whenever a Royal Navy ship was lost through whatever means (beyond use as a fireship or blockship or other deliberate destruction). It was standard, and in cases of ships lost in battle was usually unanimously closed in favour of the ship's officers. That Willoughby was criticised at all was a major (although not fatal) blow to his career. I'm not sure how much of this detail needs to go into the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

These suggestions are incredibly minor, and even if you do nothing about them, my response is still
Strongly Support. Very Nice Job! Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your well thought out response. I have given answers to your questions above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, but some suggestions:

• The linking of "harbour" in the lead may be a case of overlinking
• The term "prize officer" needs explanation.
• The term "spiking the guns" needs explanation.
• Although the term "warping the ship" has a wikilink, given its obscurity to lay people and its importance to the run of battle, I would actually explain it in the article text. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support and comments. I have removed harbour and briefly explained the other terms.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Two things to fix

• WP:LINK—why "harbour", "cannon", "United Kingdom", "blockade", "lagoon", etc? Please audit throughout.
• Image sizes: TINY. Can we have them enlarged, please, especially the last one, the map, the Grand-Port, and the Sirius – in fact, most of them (detailed). Tony (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have delinked harbour and lagoon. In my naval articles, I always try to provide links for technical naval terms: thus cannon is linked to distinguish it from carronade, which were also widely used at the time and other less common forms of artillery that sometimes appear (like the bizarre cannonade gun found on East Indiamen, or swivel guns used on smaller vessels). blockade is actually quite a technical strategic term in this instance and I have had requests for it to be linked on other articles and I try to remain consistent with this. As for United Kingdom, I have no objection to delinking it in the article text, but I thought it was standard to link combatants the first time they appear, no matter who they are (and its also worth noting when looking at this that the official name of the country actually changed during the war from "Great Britain" to "United Kingdom").

As for the images, I know that in the past I have been told numerous times at FAC that adding px numbers to images in the article is actually forbidden because it can cause problems for some people at some screen resolutions: is this no longer the case (the rules on images seem to keep changing all the time)?

Thankyou for your comments--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have always felt that discouraging set pixel sizes has been interpreted too strongly in the past - it's a suggestion, not a rule - but I think the current guideline is that if a size is set, then the size should be 300 pixels (or more). From Wikipedia:Picture tutorial: "Typically if you specify a width in pixels, it should be at least 300px, so that it's no smaller than the user's preferred width." And I fully support making the pictures larger as well, especially the map which requires a large size to discern detail. SnowFire (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I have addressed the image problem now, thanks for your comments both.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Grand_Port_mg6971.jpg needs the copyright info for the original painter, not just the photographer (in particular b/death dates, as there's no link to the artist on en.wiki.)

OK, had ago with this and the other Gilbert works, let me know if there are any additional problems.

• File:Mauritius rel90.jpg needs more accurate source info than just "CIA".

Replaced with better image.

• File:Grand Port mg6973.jpg, File:Grand Port mg6971b.jpg same issue as above.

Dealt with as above.

• File:Battle of Grand Port.svg and the map's information was based on?

I will check with the uploader.

Uploader has provided details and I have added these to the image file.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• File:GrandPort2.jpg invalid license if you don't have the date of publication or know the author.

I know who the painter is, and the style is clearly nineteenth century, but I will contact the uploader for more information.

Between us the uploader and I have been unable to discern any clearer information on the date of death of the artist in this instance and so I have removed the image until this has been established.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• File:NavalBattleOfGrandPort.jpg authors info?

Done as above.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Answered as above, still checking one or two details.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe these have all now been addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sourcing concerns - I was able to check few of the books, but the sourcing I could check has problems.

1. "Willoughby's raiding was interrupted at 10:00 on 20 August when five ships were sighted..." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. This source starts the discussion on p. 29. "rapidly approaching from the southeast" was not in the source. The article claims "returning from the Comoros Islands." but the source says "they were both proceeding at that time from the Cape to Madras". "Île de France" does not appear on either page of the source, and you cannot sail to it as it is in the center of France. The "Isle of France", i.e. Mauritius in French, is mentioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2. "Willoughby brought Nereide close to Île de la Passe to combine their fire and hastily recalled his boats, which were carrying 160 men back to Nereide from a raid near Grand Port that morning" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2. The above is quite different from the depiction in the source and I do not know where to start. The events as written above, with the "hasty recall", etc, do not seem to appear that way in the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

3. "Three men were killed and 12 badly burned, six cannons were dismounted and one discharged unexpectedly..." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

3. The source says six were destroyed, not "dismounted". I see nothing about a canon discharging unexpectedly in the source. I don't see anything that is close to the last part of the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

4. "French losses were more severe, Minerve suffering 23 casualties and Ceylon eight" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

4. The source merely says "disabled" without any further explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

5. "The French crew drove the captured East Indiaman on shore, joined shortly afterwards by Minerve, Bellone and later by Victor, so that by 18:30 the entire French force was grounded and all but Bellone prevented from firing their main broadsides by beached ships blocking their arc of fire" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

5. The source says that the Siri "threw herself onto a coral reef", and Magicienne and Iphigenia then altered their course to avoid the same mishap; but this did not prevent the forme" I see nothing besides these two ships grounding themselves in any way. On p. 32, it says "At 2 p.m. they moored besides the Sirius and Nereid." "moored" is far different than "grounded". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I stopped there as this source seems to have the same problems in every instance. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have phrased your objection very clearly and as a result I'm a little unsure what you are asking me to do. As far as I can make out you are asking:

1) Are you asking for that specific sentence to be given a source (its totally non-controversial, and I believe off-hand that I can attribute it to both James and Clowes at least)? the Macmillan reference is for Duperre's intention to enter the harbour via Ile de la Passe (which it immediately follows), which does appear on the page. In addition please note that Duperre's stay in the Comoros Islands is already mentioned and sourced above that and so doesn't need to be again (and the Madras voyage you refer to was a British squadron captured by Duperre - this is covered above in Background). Also, obviously I am not referring to the "Ile de France" in Northern France but to Mauritius. However that name is anachronistic for this time period. (Note that when I link to the island, the link is piped to Mauritius).

2) Are you asking for a source regarding specifically the "hasty recall" (again, I think James and Clowes cover this)? The Macmillan reference does however clearly mention the return of 160 men from a raiding operation, so is actually very close to the text.

3) The "dismounted" word comes from either James or Clowes and is a far more accurate description than the rather dramatic "destroyed" (imagine the forces required to actually destroy an iron cannon). Although perhaps the exact wording of the second half of the sentance is not replicated in the source, the implication is definately there. However if this is insufficient for you I'm sure several additional sources can be found.

4) I see absolutely no problem here - what do you think "disabled" means in this context?

5) There is also no problem here: firstly you seem to have confused some of the French ships with some of the British ones, and secondly the source quite clearly backs up the article in the final two paragraphs of that page.

So in summary, there doesn't really seem to be a lot wrong with this source on the evidence you have raised. For an action of this complexity several sources are required to describe each stage, and it would be obviously impractical to reference each word or even each sentance as it appears in the source texts. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. A citation is supposed to cover everything before it. The article should be fully cited. 2. The textual difference is in the way it is described, as there is no mention of a "recall" order given. If it is in another source, please cite that source on the page. 3. If that comes from another source then please cite that source for the sentence. 4. Disabled could mean anything from wounded, stunned, or just knocked unconscious. Casualties normally implies severe wounding or death. 5. I checked the final two paragraphs and I see nothing of the sort. There is mention of a mudbank and a shoal, but neither are shore. At most, there are two ships that could be seen as stuck on anything. There is no way to say the source accurate depicts what the article says. I have now officially read page 33 and 32 for the 6th time and can see no possible way to justify what is said in the article by what is found in the source. Furthermore, I did not "object". I provided a source to article analysis for reviewers to see in regards to how the sources were used in the article. If others wish to, they can object over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will provide additional sources for the first three points. With four, I'm afraid you are incorrect: a Casualty (person) is somebody rendered unable to continue fighting by whatever means, be it death, injury, capture or even simple absence. Thus disabled (which is in fact a rather odd term for the source to use in this context) and casualty mean the same thing here (i.e. killed or wounded, since no one was captured or went missing during the engagement). As for 5, I can see now where you are confused: look at Shoal, specifically the term harbour bar which is what we are looking at here (although none of the source use that specific terminology) - it is a sandbar, mudbank or similar natural structure that gathers at the mouth of a river or in this case a number of small rivers. In this case, the shoals at Grand Port are indeed part of the shoreline, as opposed to a coral reef that lies slightly offshore. The British ships grounded on coral reefs, which did terrible damage to their hulls, resulting in their eventual destruction. The French ships grounded on sand or mud and thus could be safely brought off after the battle. If you wish I can clarify this a little more in the text, although I don't have sources that specifically back up what I just said (its implicit - naval histories tend to assume a fairly high level of knowledge about such things among their readers from the start). I'm not sure what to do about your penultimate point: I've read it again, and page 33 quite clearly states that Ceylon, Victor, Minerve and Bellone had all grounded (i.e. stuck) on a shoal/mudbank/shore while Sirius and 'Magicienne had grounded on coral reefs. Finally I apologise regarding the word objection - I merely meant it to be descriptive and did not seek to cast aspersions against you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I know of military history, casualties must be long term. Disabled could merely mean at that moment. The term is too vague. Please find a different source. "are indeed part of the shoreline" Please find another source for this part then (and move the citation forward and have grounded on the shoreline cited to this ref explaining the shoreline), as the source used does not seem to verify this as it is too vague. Regardless, I believe your final point is from this passage: "in so doing, and whilst she was slipping her front cable, her stern ropes were severed by a shot, with the result that the south-eastern breeze drove her right behind the Ceylon, against a shoal on which she touched. The Ceylon, unequaled to the combined volleys of two frigates, cut her cables and hoisted top sails to follow the Minerve, came in contact with the poop of that vessel and gently pushed her forward... The three French vessels now got jammed together." From what I can see, one ship can be demonstrated to be on the shoal. The others can only be declared to touch that other ship or be near it. At no point does it say that the others were grounded or were anything but touching each other with one that was grounded. Does that make sense? The source is way too vague. If you have a clearer source, please use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) First of all, casualties do not have to be long term: indeed the British Army definition of "casualty" was traditionally any man who failed to be counted at roll call following a battle for any reason (obviously this is only one specific interpretation and not the one being used here, which I have described above). Secondly, I am confused about what you are asking for: do you want to see a source explaining what a shoreline is? Finally, I have now sourced the first two of your points and rephrased the last as I cannot now locate the text describing the recall order (although obviously one must have been given and I'm sure I've seen it somewhere). Please note that James p. 286 quite comfortably covers both of your final two points with the quote given in the Attempted withdrawal section. I really do not see any problem with using this source in conjunction with the others presented - when writing an article it is by combining several sources that the most accurate and neutral account can be produced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not want a source defining shoreline. I want a source that says that the above is part of the shoreline. Otherwise, making such claims would fall under original research (so, add a citation so it wont be). You seem to have plenty of sources to chose from, and I am sure googlebooks can help you find more if you aren't able to find it now. If, as you state, the James source covers it, then adding it should cover the problems, no? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is still not clear to me: are you asking for a source that definatively states that at Grand Port the sand and mud banks form part of the shoreline? I would be astonished if one exisited in the format you are asking for - any naval history worth quoting would automatically assume its readers understood that (see shore). What do you think shoreline means? The James quote given in the article that you mention above is typical of this attitude in histories - do you want me to reference it twice?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I was asking for another source that says they were all "grounded". As I quoted, it seems to vague from the above to see them all as grounded, as some appear to simply be against another but not quite grounded. I am sure another source would have it in a clearer manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of bringing this discussion to a close, I have used James to supplement Macmillan in this instance. I maintain that Macmillan is quite clear on this point and that no additional reference is necessary, but have added another in the spirit of compromise.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.