Talk:Henry Worsley Hill

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Military history: Biography / Maritime / British / European

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Unexplained reversion

Hello. I don't understand why my minor copy edit was reverted. As HMSSaracen did not leave an edit summary, I would have to guess - I hope that it was an accident.

Just in case it helps, let me go through (most of) what I did:

I made the article name bold in the lead - please see MOS:BOLDTITLE, which says: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.
I changed the format of all dates to the one that we most commonly use for UK-related articles, that is, 11 April 2018 rather than April 11, 2018. Please see MOS:DATETIES which states Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976.
I removed from the lead paragraph a duplicate of the sentence He was the eldest son of Vice-Admiral Henry Hill (1775-1849) and Ann Worsley (1779-1805). There were literally two of them sitting there cheek by jowl, saying the same thing twice. They were saying the same thing twice. They were saying the same thing twice ... oh never mind!
I corrected the misspelt word remanded to what I think was correct, remained. Please correct me if I am wrong - maybe it is some Term Of Art in naval usage? - but he remanded a lieutenant on the HMS Andromache doesn't sound right to me.
I changed the slightly clunky usage "Freshwater, Isle of Wight, England, United Kingdom" into "Freshwater, Isle of Wight, England. My version is more elegant and saves the trees by using less paper. We could also discuss the use of the term "United Kingdom" and what it implies for a chap born in 1799, but to be honest I think it is best avoided here anyway.

I think that's all. I still can't understand why my inoffensive edit, which was intended to welcome this interesting new article and move it towards our standard format, as well as taking out a couple of errors, was reverted without even a comment. As I say, I hope it was merely an error; in case it was not, it might be worth taking a look at WP:OWN which explains that none of us "own" our creations - we have handed them over to the world as soon as we pressed "Publish"!

Hope this helps, best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. It's a work in progress. Let's keep the edits for now. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMSSaracen (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much and happy editing! DBaK (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]