Talk:Battle of San Domingo

Expansion

As a courtesy I am leaving a notice that I am preparing a new, expanded and sourced version of this article in my Userspace (using the current page as a basis). It should be pasted up here in a week or two. If anyone has any comments then by all means drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The new version of the article has been copied and pasted onto this one. For those interested in the sequence of edits used in the article's development, see the history of the redirect User:jackyd101/Battle of San Domingo.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of San Domingo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The lead and the infobox conflict as to the three smaller french ships. One says all three were frigatrs, the other says two were frigates and one was a corvette. Please clariffy this, it continues throughout the article. The difference is minimal but could be confusing to people who are unclear on naval terminology.

This use of terminology is fairly normal in naval histories, but I understand how it could be confusing - done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. I recommend wikilinking most of the ranks. All the different grades of Admiral are somewhat confusing.

Done. To be honest there is little difference between the grades - all admirals were technically holding independent commands, its just that three British ones happened to combine for the battle.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "Before the schooner had sailed, a number of French officers had commented on the risk involved in allowing the vessel to leave port, but the admiral had refused their demands that he burn the Danish ship." - Needs a ref.

Its the same as the one immediately above it - done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
   1. Is there any map that could be provided regarding the battle, or at least a map of the general area. It would aid in the complicated descriptions of the ship movements during the battle.

I'd love a map. However the only "official" and reliable account of the battle comes from Duckworth and is very vague on ship positions and their relation to the shore - its so ambiguously phrased that a number of historians have placed it 50 miles west of where it actually took place. Other sources have filled in details, but I have yet to see a reliable map.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Also, just a suggestion, but I would recommend more images on the article, just to break up the blocks of text. An image of Leissègues and/or Duckworth, for example, would be very nice.

Good idea, done.

1. Overall:

   On Hold Once again, just a few nitpicks. They should be easy to address, and then the article is good to go. —Ed!^(talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good. The article now meets GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks!--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Last Fleet engagement?

How is this the last naval engagement, a number of different fleets clashed throughout the period between 1806-1814? There's numerous war of 1812 engagements, not to mention the battle of Athos, Dardanelles, the battle of lissa, and so forth. Wastedgrunt36 I believe it should read last major open water fleet engagement. There were many other engagements, but none were in open water and between fleets of ships-of-the-line. I do agree that the wording is ambiguous and should be altered. I shall think on it. Corneredmouse (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A very belated reply - I've no problem with the change as made, but should note that the original text described this as "the last fleet engagement of the war". In the engagements listed above, only Athos was a fleet battle and that was part of a different, contiguous, war. The United States didn't have a battle fleet during the war of 1812, just a handful of very successful raiding frigates. The Dardanelles was not a battle between fleets but an engagement between a British fleet and Turkish shore defences while Lissa was fought between two frigate squadrons. San Domingo was the last battle of the Napoleonic Wars to feature a direct engagement between two fleet sized forces (and small ones at that). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)