Talk:John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent

Lead

While I am thinking about it, before we nominate this for GA review or FA review, you will need to rewrite and expand the lead according to the recommendations at WP:Lead, so this lead should be at least 2-3 paragraphs. Sadads (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want some date oriented context in the lead, so like "While St. Vincent was commander of the Mediteranean fleet in ... " etc. That summarizes the content of the article better. Sadads (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Jervis"

In my area there is a disagreement on how to pronounce Cape Jervis, which is named after him. How was his name pronounced in the UK in his lifetime, and now? Is it pronounced "Jervis" or "Jarvis"? Should I take the lack of explanation as an endorsement of the more obvious pronunciation? Thank you --219.90.217.247 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Being English I have always pronounced it "Jarvis" rather than "Jervis". His nickname was "Old Jarvie" and a Jarvie or Jarvey was the nickname for a coachman and that was pronounced with an "a" sound so I imagine the two were quite close in their pronunciation. I could of course be wrong. Corneredmouse (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jarvis is the pronunciation of the admiral's surname, in a similar way the English ways of saying "clerk" is "clark" and "Derby" is "Darby". However, eponymous place names in other countries often end up with completely different pronunciations when the original pronunciation differs from the apparent spelling. Dabbler (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jervis is pronounced Jervis. I am a descendant of John Jervis's sister Mary Ricketts and there are currently about 100 living descendants of Mary Ricketts of whom about 50 have the name of Jervis or Parker-Jervis. Mary Ricketts started life as Mary Jervis, then married Ricketts and so became Mrs Ricketts. On the death of John Jervis the children of Mary Ricketts became Jervis and some of her descendants became Parker-Jervis as well. John Jervis had no known children of his own so the name and title went to Mary Ricketts descendants. I hope that helps. There is much more information in Burke's Peerage.

Peer review comments

• This statement in the section "Early Naval Career": "under one of his patrons Captain Charles Saunders in the Mediterranean". When did we establish that he had patrons? Who else are patrons? Would he later become his patron? It confused me a bit. Sadads (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ships names, I see that you have redirected for a lot of ships names. There is actually a template which handles this kind of redirect very well, check out Template:HMS. I don't think a GA review will comment on this, but an A-Class for MILHIST or a FA review will probably need it replaced. Sadads (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Context of war and actions, a lot of the sections focus exclusively on Jervis, but in Battle for Ushant for instance, we don't have the context in which Jervis transitions from Peaceful European tourist to Battle commander. More geo-political context, in general, would be nice, Sadads (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 20:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First round review

A few preliminary items:

• Article does not adhere to WP:MOSQUOTE: quotations should not be italic (unless so in original), and quote marks should be uniformly straight (", not “”).
• Older public-domain sources that are available online (e.g. through Google Books or Gutenberg) should include links to such resources. They should also include OCLC numbers (these can be retrieved by looking the works up at worldcat.org).
• There are links to anachronistic or incorrect political entities. Two that I spotted are Canada ( which did not exist in his lifetime) and Quebec (referring to Quebec City). These should be instead reference (with appropriate explanatory language if needed) contemporary entities (in the two cases I saw the entities in question are actually Canada, New France and Quebec City).
• There is a higher-quality color version of File:A View of the taking of Quebec Sept 13th 1759.jpg at the NMM. The currently asserted copyright of this image is also incorrect: the NMM asserts more restrictive copyrights over reproductions of its images than the one claimed. Copyright of old paintings and drawings from the NMM should be {{PD-art}}, which contains a suitable disclaimer against the NMM's copyright assertion.
• File:Gibraltar en 1782 ravitaille par lord Howe.jpg (should that be File:Howe's relief of gibraltar.jpg?), File:Capture of Fort Louis, Martinique, 1794.jpg, File:John Bull peeping into Brest.jpg, File:Earl st vincent in old age.jpg should also be PD-art. (If these images are available online, e.g. through NMM's site, this should be linked on the image page.)

More to come, possibly tomorrow. Magic♪piano 02:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisions

• I've changed all the quotes.
• I'm working on the url links to the older books.
• Also working on OCLC nos.
• Changed the references to Canada and Quebec.
• Am awful with commons and pictures. I don't really know how to do it. Can you point me toward someone who might be willing to sort out those pictures correctly. Obviously I don't want to breach copyright and the folks over at the NMM are always so nice and I don't want to upset them either.
  • The file pages on Commons that contain the metadata and licensing are editable, just like WP pages -- you just have to open them, change the license template, and a link to the image's page at NMM in the source field. See e.g. File:HoratioNelson1.jpg for a somewhat over-the-top example (you only really need to link the catalogue page). Magic♪piano 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've editted File:Howe's relief of gibraltar.jpg Is this ok? Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. Magic♪piano 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Second round review

• WP:MOSCAPS -- there are a number of things that are unnecessarily capitalized. Military titles are generally not capitalized unless preceding a holder's name -- thus "Admiral" in the first sentence ("was an Admiral") of the lead should not be capitalized. "Block Making Machinery" is also not a formal name. These sorts of errors appear throughout; please check the whole article.
• I would add the year in which the Battle of Cape Saint Vincent occurred to the lead.
• There are a number of WP articles for actions that are mentioned here; I added some links, there are probably more.
• There are places where "seaman" is used when the plural is clearly intended.
• As Benea mentions on talk page: Further honours and Legacy should written as proper prose sections; the semi-list form they're in is particularly jarring.
• The section on the battle of cape st. vincent has four images bunched close; the preceding and following sections have none. These images can be better distributed.
• There are some minor copyedits needed; rather than list them, I'll just fix them. If more serious prose issues turn up in doing so, I'll list them here.

-- Magic♪piano 00:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional items that cropped up during copyediting:

• You should apply WP:ENDASH to date ranges and page ranges in citations
• The list of reports generated by the inquiry commissioned should be formatted using numbered list formatting (Help:List)
• Earl of Portsmouth in "Powers to promote" links to the article about the title; it should link to the appropriate titleholder
• Some external web references do not have access dates; these should be converted to {{cite web}} or similar format
• If the section labelled "External links" contains things used as references, they should include access dates and be formatted a la {{cite web}}; if they are not used as references, they shouldn't be under the level-2 (==) "References" heading. (Per WP:LAYOUT, "External links" should be a level-2 heading containing things not used as references.)

I'll hold the review until you have time to deal with them. Magic♪piano 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Warts

You're right about a too positive attitude. I felt that jervis had been somewhat maligned as a result of the o'brian books and championed him. Possibly too much. Other points like the style if prose are also something I'm happy to work on before you either award or reject GA status. I'm a little busy right now though as my son was born this morning. I shall take a stab at some further edits next week. Cheers, Corneredmouse (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not read the O'Brian books (I know of the them), so I'm not going to be colored them. I'm merely ruminating on the nature of the sources used. Benea is more of a naval guy than I am, and obviously more knowledgeable in the specific time. (I actually picked this to review because I believe Jervis may have met one of my pet subjects, Benedict Arnold, at Guadeloupe in 1794.) Magic♪piano 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the addition to your family. I don't think there's anything seriously wrong beyond what I've listed above (and pending my copyedit of minor things). I'll hold the review open until you can deal with them. Magic♪piano 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page saying you finished with the edits here; I see that a number of your edits left dangling uncited sentences. Are you intending to do more citation work? Magic♪piano 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I may have been somewhat premature and sleep deprived. I forgot I still need to do citeweb on the External links. I will also take a look at the sentences and see if I can get appropriate citations for them. Corneredmouse (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood; take your time. Magic♪piano 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Status

I'd like to wind this review down. I fixed a few minor outstanding issues, but there some bare URL citations, and at least one bare-linked URL in the text that ought to be converted to {{cite web}} (or in the case of at least one of the cites, {{cite book}}). Can these be fixed soon? Magic♪piano 13:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I think I've done them all now. You may as well close out the review. I'm finding it harder and harder to get things done on wikipedia and as pleased as I am with this article I'm aware that it needs a finessing that I don't have the skill or the time to accomplish. I guess you'll just have to mark my work now and I'll accept whatever grade I get. Thanks for all the copyedit, help, opinion, and general goodwill and effort you've put in. It has enriched my wikipedia experience and taught me an awful lot. I'm grateful and I hope that we cross paths again. Should you ever need help on a project, let me know and if I can, I will. All the best, Ian Corneredmouse (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks good now; I'll pass it. Best of luck! Magic♪piano 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some points

I've a few minor queries I'd like to raise about this article. I've only been through the second half of it:

• It's a bit unclear with Jervis saying to Calder 'Enough sir. No more of that.' when its not mentioned what Calder was doing that Jervis wished him to stop (counting off the enemy ships). It would make more sense if this were included to give the context of the comment.
• Nelson was indeed not mentioned in the despatch, but this was not due to any anger on Jervis's part for Nelson disobeying orders. With the exception of Calder, who was detailed to take the despatch back home, none of the captains or officers serving under Jervis were individually mentioned. This is attributed to the furore that accompanied Howe's despatch after the Glorious First of June, and the squabbles between those who had not been mentioned etc. Jervis, who disliked having to write despatches anyway, settled it by mentioning none of them. As you've stated later in the paragraph, Jervis was indeed very forgiving of Nelson's actions, and Roger notes that he had in fact acted as Jervis expected him to do, to take the initiative if he saw a good opportunity.
• The sentence 'Sir Robert, as he had become thanks to the battle' is a little obscure. I know what you mean, Calder received a knighthood (though this was customary to the man who brought the despatches about a victory, and not wholly due to his actions in the battle) but it could be made clearer, or omitted here.
• I'd use the full name of an officer at least the first time you use it for clarity. So Admiral Robert Mann and Admiral José de Córdoba, rather than Admiral Mann and Admiral Córdoba.
• The sentence 'This discontent manifested itself at the Nore and at Spithead.' hides the meaning. How did the discontent manifest? In mutiny.
• 'ensured that the Mediterranean fleet did not succumb to the greater excesses of mutiny.' What does greater excesses mean here? Greater than offences other than mutiny, like drunkenness? Or a greater form of mutiny, so say the difference between seditious mutterings and armed insurrection?
• Nothing about the negative effects of Jervis's reforms on the dockyards? His zeal almost fatally destabilised them at a time of pressing danger for Britain, and came close to destroying the efficiency he was trying to create. He attacked the old systems, which though they were afflicted with varying levels of corruption, were remarkably efficient and good at what they did. His alienation of civilian contractors was damaging to the navy, as was the loss of morale in the civil departments. Discontent with his policies was widespread with some justification, even naval officers such as Nelson questioned his effectiveness.
• 'Another curious shackle that came with promotion to first lord of the Admiralty was that St Vincent was inundated with letters from aspiring officers and their relatives and friends. The art of soliciting employment from those in positions of influence in the navy had become almost an art form. The art of rejecting the letters tactfully was an equal art form.' This prose seems like it could be tightened somewhat, and expressed in less flowery tones.
• The account of Jervis's relationship with Cochrane is a little one-sided. The account is correct as far as his promotion to post-captain did not come until after his aquittal for Speedy's loss, but Cochrane was right to think Jervis bore him a grudge, though it was of Cochrane's own making. He and his relatives had pestered Jervis for a long time for employment and promotions for himself and those under his command, and his rebellious and at times disrespectful attitude to his superiors must have rankled with Jervis who was a strict disciplinarian. Maybe a little can be added on this, especially St Vincent's response 'the First Lord of the Admiralty knows no must'?
• Can the list-like sections 'Further honours' and 'Legacy' be turned into more flowing prose?

Benea (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you comment the overall balance of the article, considering that it is extensively sourced to an author who knew the subject and was apparently well-disposed to him? Magic♪piano 00:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading through this I think this is actually quite a serious issue. It's heavily based on Tucker with little other biographical detail brought in. Jervis, despite his stature, does not have the wealth of biographical material that say Nelson has, but there are a number of smaller and more recent biographical sketches out there that would serve to put his achievements in a more balanced context. The ODNB and Tracey's collection of naval biographies are two such examples. I think this has given an overly favourable and uncritical light to some of Jervis's acts, particularly his dockyard reforms, and his forays into politics. Lavery's 'Nelson's Navy', and Roger's works on the navy of the period would be extremely useful here to assess their reception and overall effect. Did the reforms ultimately succeed? How drastic and change were they? How did the navy cope with the changes while they were taking place? How long did it take, were the effects lasting, etc? Jervis's relationship with Cochrane is another well known and often recorded episode, but while the picture here is of an unfounded grievance on Cochrane's part, Thomas's and Cordingly's biographies add more detail, that Jervis certainly did not speed Cochrane's appointment to a ship, and had to be brought under considerable pressure from Cochrane's powerful relatives. I think this article could benefit from a wider reading around the sources. Jervis is mentioned and discussed in a lot of the works on the navy in the period, and these could be used to move the article away from its current dependence on the older texts. Benea (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that there appears to be a lack of dedicated 20th-century biographies, which to some extent justifies a fairly pervasive use of 19th-century sources. However, I found this; presumably there are other such works that might provide some balance. I'm not sure the issue of balance is bad enough to scuttle the GA candidacy (the article is certainly broad enough in its coverage, and does present some of his warts), but I'd certainly push harder on this at ACR or FAC. Magic♪piano 14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a historiography section based on an indices published in 2004, that seems to identify modern scholarship, if their really is any. Feel free to contact me if you have questions, Sadads (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)