Talk:French ship Vengeur du Peuple

French ship Vengeur du Peuple has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 4, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 7, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
July 20, 2013	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved

Current status: Good article

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / European / French / Early Modern / American Revolution / Napoleonic era

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

The previous name of this ship, Marseillais (or Marseillois) is a reference to the city of Marseilles, and not to the Revolutionary song of that name which post-dates the ship by quite some time. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

I've deleted the citation request for the number saved ('about 400') as it's in Mahan, the source for that part of the article; I've added the page number (finally!). It means there's a discrepancy now with the other figure given (277); that's also unreferenced, so I've added a citation request for it. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:French ship Vengeur du Peuple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issues I've tagged before this review continues. Also note that many pieces of prose are rather poor (one sentence paragraphs, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues unaddressed in one week, failing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only just addressed issues pointed out in the previous nomination. I would be grateful for any advise, and also for suggestions to improve the language and flow of the article. Rama (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:French ship Vengeur du Peuple/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cdtew (talk · contribs) 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to review this. It may take me a little extra time, but I should have my thoughts done by this evening. Cdtew (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Is there a way that you can think of to provide a conversion or comparison for the 500,000 livres cost? I'm not a fan of providing direct conversions for costs of this age, but perhaps you can provide a comparative to average ship costs or the like?
I think a wikilink to a definition of careening may be helpful.
Your use of the phrase "superior French squadron" slightly goes against NPOV unless you qualify it - superior in numbers, guns, etc?
The first sentence of the "Campaign of 1778–1780 under La Poype de Vertrieu" is loooong. I'd suggest cutting it into multiple sentences for clarity.
As a note, I do a lot of AmRevWar articles, and I find the terms "American" and "rebels" to be imprecise. Generally I find it more precise to use the term Patriots (as contrasted with Loyalists and the British Army). Your mileage may vary, but that's just a suggestion so that there's more uniformity in the subject area.
"The French fleet sustained damage at the Siege of Savannah and eventually returned to Europe. Marseillois returned to Toulon with Zélé, Sagittaire, Protecteur, and Expériment[15] 46 members of her crew had died during the campaigns, of which only three in combat.[5]".

This is one long sentence, and needs to be broken up and rephrased.

"shall never sail distinguishly" - is that directly from the source, or translated? I'm not familiar with the term distinguishly - perhaps "distinguishably"?
You might wan to clarify where Cadix is by wiki linking.
"probably a response to Marseille's parts " - This is a little awkward phrasing. Maybe "probably in response to Marseille's role"?
You may want to explain what a "rope ram" is to the uninitiated.

This is all-around an excellent article, worthy most likely of Featured status, and with a little more polishing, certain to get tha point. I am honored to have been able to review it for GAN. Let me know if my comments have raised any questions. Cdtew (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful for the helpful suggestions and the flatering appreciation. I have tried to answer the questions and suggestions with these edits:

500,000 livres cost: [1] (this is a very interesting and tricky question)
Careening: [2] (the link to Careening is given with the synonymous expression "hove down")
"superior French squadron": [3]
The first sentence of the "Campaign of 1778–1780 under La Poype de Vertrieu": [4]
"American" and "rebels": [5]
Long sentence "The French fleet sustained damage at the Siege of Savannah": [6]
"shall never sail distinguishly": [7] (I hope "sailor" is not too obscure in this sense)
Cadix: [8]
"probably a response to Marseille's parts ": [9]
"rope ram": [10]

Thank you very much again, and do not hesitate to ask if you see anything to further improve the article. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Reviewer: Rama, thank you for the swift edits. This is almost ready to go, but I'm a little concerned about your edits re: comparative cost of the ship. You're right, it is a tricky question, but here's how I've resolved it in another context (that of a French and Indian War Fort): I found two book sources that stated the costs of two other forts, and cited to them while comparing and contrasting the forts (ie: 10,000 pounds gets you a wooden palisade fort in North Carolina, while 60,000 pounds bought this stone fort in New York, and 20,000 pounds built a blockhouse in Pennsylvania).

In this case, here's my concern: sources [1] and [3] appear to not meet WP:RS, in that they are respectively a website article without good citation to sources (that my rusty French can tell), and the latter being a message board, which I'm fairly certain doesn't pass WP:VERIFY. What I would suggest (and I apologize, I should have been clearer about this before) is to find a reliable source that compares the cost of another or two other famous french ships to this.

As a side note, while [2] appears to be a good source, I'm wary of comparing the price of butter to the cost of a ship, as that doesn't really provide an easily-ascertainable comparative and contrast to the cost of this ship. In other words, I could say that this ship cost the same as 1.3 million pounds of butter, but psychologically I think humans have a very hard time using that as a basis for comparison. Similarly, I don't like inflation-adjustment charts that go back 250 years because they universally fail to take into account things like non-currency transactions, cost of living adjustments, and monetary policy and currency changes. Lastly, if you use grams and kilogrammes in the note, you'd probably need to do a conversion template to ounces and pounds. Cdtew (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: the note for the following paragraph is gone, and it now lacks an in-line citation for some reason. So that there's not too many chefs spoiling the broth I'll let you backtrack your edits to repair this:

La Poype de Vertrieu wrote his report and recommendations for the refitting of Marseillois on 24 December 1779; he found her a passable ship, but her high poop hindered her sailing when running, and he recommended improvements to the gun ports of the castles, which were obstructed and allowed only two guns on the quarterdeck and one on the forecastle to be used. Furthermore, substantial repairs on the rigging were needed, and she needed her hull heated to kill worms. La Poype de Vertrieu wrote "it appears that Marseillois shall never be an exceptional sailor, but I am convinced that she will give satisfaction".[note 3]

Ah yes, I'd removed the inline reference because I though it was redundent with the reference in the note, but indeed I needed to reference the main text as well. I've restablished the reference.

Thank you very much for your suggestions on the price; as you can tell, I had never considered this question in much depth, though it is a very interesting one. I'll look for good references on the price of ships and let you know as soon as I have something. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can either place this on hold until you find something, or if you just wanted to remove citations 1 and 3 from Note 3, I will go ahead and pass it. It is your call. Cdtew (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I have just found the prices for the three-decker Bretagne, built around the same time (and also with a "Don des vaisseaux" public subscription); these figures are coherant with those for Marseillois (the three-decker is over twice the price, as I would expect) and come from conference proceedings, which should be reasonably serious (the figures are also coherent with those given on the French Wikipedia, which references a book that I don't have at the moment). The edit is [11] Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

Thank you again and cheers! Rama (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parfait! This is ready to be passed. Best of luck in the future. Cdtew (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful comments, the valuable sugestions (I'll try to develop a habit of comparing prices when possible) and the encouragements. Cheers! Rama (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on French ship Vengeur du Peuple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]