Wp:Featured article candidates/USS Constellation vs La Vengeance/archive1

{{la|USS Constellation vs La Vengeance}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=USS Constellation vs La Vengeance}}

:Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i believe that it meets that standards of a Featured Article. This article covers the engagement between the American frigate USS Constellation and the French frigate la Vengeance. It was one of the of the bloodiest battles of the Quasi War between France and the USA, and was the engagment that saw the most American casualties out of any in the conflict. The article has passed both a Good Article nomination as well as a WikiProject Military history A-class review. Any advice or comments are greatly appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

:*No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Constellation_vs_La_Vengeance&action=historysubmit&diff=444973690&oldid=440370017 changes] made since I reviewed this for A-class. [http://toolserver.org/~overlordq/scripts/articlecontribs.fcgi?lang=en&family=wikipedia&article=USS_Constellation_vs_La_Vengeance&user=Dank&sub=1 These] are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: light blue; color:Black;|contentstyle = border:1px Red solid;

|header=Brad101 issues resolved Brad (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)|content=

Comments Was just passing by.

• Have to mention you should check your Hill source carefully against other sources. When using Hill on other articles I've noticed he's often mistaken.
• I have added a supporting ciatation from James Fenimore Cooper's The history of the Navy of the United States of America, the only hill ciatation was there in regards to the number of crew the Constellation had at the time of the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Truxton's opening double-shotted broadside slammed into the port side of La Vengeance's hull. "Slammed" is a bit sensational but there are other areas in the article similar.
• Does "slammed" convey any subtext that either isn't accurate or isn't supported by the sources? Is it colloquial or informal or inaccessible to some of our readership? Those are the questions I ask myself when I'm copyediting; I'm not sure what the answer is in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• A successful broadside literally does slam into the side of a vessel, think of the amount of force the 38 cannon balls of the double-shotted broadside had when they struck the la Vengeance.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• It just reads a bit odd to me but it's not something I'd oppose over. Brad (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• :File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg needs shoring up. "Bailey Collection of watercolor views of U.S. Naval actions".. What or where is this source? Date of painting needed; not the upload date. When was the photo or scan of this painting taken and by whom? Likely this should be a PD-art license.
• The bailey collection of watercolor views of U.S. Naval actions" is a collection of water colours that was purchased by the Mariners Museum (http://www.marinersmuseum.org/). When purchased the museum thought that the collection was from the 19th century but eventually discovered that the paintings were created by Irwin Bevan as part of a book that apparently never was finished. The dates of the paintings are unknown, though they likely were created before 1923.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• "likely created before 1923" isn't very reassuring. Again, when was the photo or scan of this painting taken and by whom? The licensing for a photo in an FA needs to be top notch and leave no questions open. Brad (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• As ive stated before, the owner of the painting of the painting (the mariners museaum) has no idea when it was created. Images from the bailey collection are frequently used by the military and other published works. It is literally impossible for someone to claim copywrite over them because they would not be able to prove that the images are copywritable in the first place. Given that Bevan was 71 in 1923, it is increadibly likely that they are in the public domain.XavierGreen (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• I dislike how you're evading the questions I've asked about the origins of the photo. Either the licensing has to be fixed or the photo has to be removed from the article. Brad (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• (Responding to a request at WT:MILHIST for someone to look at this) I'm afraid I concur with Brad. We need more information on the source, and we need some kind of proof of the license—at the minute, it seems to be based largely on guesswork. Unless you can prove the author died more than 70 years ago, it will have to go, I'm afraid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• According to [http://books.google.com/books?id=NRN3AAAAMAAJ&q=Irwin+John+Bevan&dq=Irwin+John+Bevan&hl=en&ei=bvRLTo2jJqWvsQKn-oncCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ this book], Bevan died in 1940. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The 70-year rule only applies if this painting went unpublished until after 1978. For works published between 1923 and 1978, copyright lasts for up to 95 years, so this painting could still plausibly be under copyright for decades. We really do need to know when he painted the work to firmly establish its copyright status. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• According to this http://books.google.com/books?id=_prfAAAAMAAJ&q=Irwin+Bevan+bailey+collection&dq=Irwin+Bevan+bailey+collection&hl=en the Bailey collection paintings were supposed to be included in a book that was never published. It appears this painting has never been published aside from recent inclusion on the mariners museaum website. I am not trying to be evasive, the information on creation simply isnt exactly known. The image can be seen on various websites for instance http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://poorwilliam.net/pix/uss-constellation_vengeance.jpg&imgrefurl=http://poorwilliam.net/al-020209.html&usg=__sQ45pAgw8LfGwWlSR0M7dIxr5FI=&h=580&w=710&sz=151&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&tbnid=mtFUHjDuh2t4SM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=140&ei=1ixMTu6_Comutwem9fWqCg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Duss%2Bconstellation%2Bla%2Bvengeance%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4ADBF_enUS313US314%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1. To avoid all this murkey copywrite stuff, why dont i simply list it under fair use? XavierGreen (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• You would not be able to justify fair use of that photo because :File:VengeanceConstellation.gif is already free use and essentially depicts the same subject of the ships at battle. Brad (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• The image just survived a Files for deletion nomination here Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_24#File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg and was found to be public domain.XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Ok but as I've been trying to do since day one is fix the licensing currently displayed on the file. I'm willing to do this but you still have not revealed where you got the photograph from. Certain basic facts are needed for this. Brad (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• I posted the webpage where i got the image on the Files for Deletion review. I first found it here, http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fuckfrance.com/images/i161/85046.743constellation_vengen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fuckfrance.com/topic/243335/1/Discussions/The-Constellation-versus-La-Vengeance-in-the-Quasi-War-with-France.html%26replies%3D2&usg=__T4BCHAQhhBtPD7A3wn0xd2EGNcU=&h=404&w=615&sz=38&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=c1_AhcXWsRvGFM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=136&ei=_3RWTvP9Oe_E0AGiwfDPDA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DConstellation%2BVengeance%2Bfuckfrance%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4ADBF_enUS313US314%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1 but i also have seen it on one or two other websites as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• I've fixed the license based on discussion surrounding its copyright status. The most important thing is to present the copyright status upfront and to the best of our ability which I believe has now been done. Brad (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for your patience, Brad. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for fixing the licensingXavierGreen (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you for not ramming 25 pics into the article. Brad (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes i to believe that pictures should only be added when they provide a useful effect of complementing the text of the article visually. Thanks for the review!XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

}}

• Support Issues in my collapse box above are resolved. Brad (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

;Consistency review of sources

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for book sources.
• FixedXavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you hyphenate ISBNs.
• Fixed, thanks for the review!XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate middle names. Eisfbnore • talk 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I haven't heard this one before, but I admit I don't keep up. Why wouldn't it be up to an author to decide how they want to be known? - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

::*Dunno, feel free to ignore that last point. Eisfbnore • talk 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Battle: In a couple places in this section, an "in order to" can be found. This is usually just unneeded wordiness and can safely be turned into "to" without affecting the meaning. The less wordy, the better.
• See if you like what I did. I'll be back home in a couple of hours to look at the rest. I stetted the first "in order to". - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comma would be helpful after "Midshipman David Porter".
• Not getting a hit on that. - Dank (push to talk)
• Aftermath: "French casualties included 29 killed and 41 wounded". In ship battles like this, do injured people really count as casualties? Not that knowledgeable about the topic, but it doesn't sound right to me.
• A casualty is a person who's effectively removed from further action. - Dank (push to talk)
• Yup, even captured soldiers can be refered to as casualties. In many historical works you'll see killed, captured, missing, and wounded all lumped together as casualties.
• In ref 27, an en dash is needed in the page range. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• I only see 15 refs. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is embarrasing on my part: the article I reviewed was USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente, not this one. Oops. No wonder a few of the things up there don't add up. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• As for this article, in the lead I see "Despite the fact that the French frigate...", which could be made less wordy in the form "Although the French frigate...".
• Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Aftermath: The use of "Unfortunately" could be seen as POV; perhaps something less strong would suffice? More importantly, that actually is in this article. :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• I got rid of the "unfortunately", and quite a bit more ... see if you like it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support – The article, while a touch on the short side, is well-written and well-cited, and meets all of the FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - Remove or replace :File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg, which has been listed for deletion per the above discussion. Everything else is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Deletion nomination was pulled. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Spot check on Cooper and Shaffner marry up with the cited material in the article, no sign of close paraphrasing etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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