Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Endeavour/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:25, 12 August 2009 [1].

---

HMS Endeavour

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Endeavour/archive1

This article passed GA last year, was peer-reviewed in June and was granted MILHIST A-class status in July. After extensive recent tweaking I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. However as this is my first FA nomination I apologise in advance for any newbie errors. Any comments, suggestions or criticisms are welcome. Euryalus (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference (http://www.dedelft.com/en/dockyard/2004/apr2004.html) What makes this a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • It's the official website of the De Delft shipyard where the replica docked, though I should have noted that it was in Dutch, sorry about that. However, I've removed the link altogether because a) it doesn't provide a unique resource per point 1 in WP:ELNO; b) sufficient replica images are already in the article; c) most of the De Delft photos aren't that good; and d) a pet peeve - the photos show the replica with blue-painted upper works. The real Endeavour′s upper works were painted mud-brown. So the De Delft images aren't an accurate representation of the real ship, which limits the utility of a link to them. Euryalus (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. The alt text needs a bit of work. The alt text for the maps should give a bit more gist of what the maps tell the sighted reader, e.g., it should say which direction through the Torres straight, and what bodies of water were traversed other than the Torres straight and in what order. The alt text "The Royal Naval Ensign in use at the time of Cook's first voyage of discovery" cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who looks only at the image; better would be "Red flag with Union Jack covering the upper left quadrant". The word "circa" should be removed, as the image doesn't say "circa". The hyphen between the years should be an endash, as per WP:ENDASH. The phrases "Painting showing", "sketch", and "a sketch of" are unnecessary noise and should be removed (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2). And please use proper English punctuation (one alt text ends in two periods, some non-sentences are punctuated with periods). Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, or at least improved. I used "Map:" to introduce the two map alt texts per the 5th example at WP:ALT (which uses "Diagram:"), but let me know if this should also be removed. It was a challenge with the map alt texts to balance information inclusion against verbosity - let me know if I got that balance wrong and I'll have another go. Lastly, sorry for the grammar errors - don't know how I missed those. Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the new alt quite good and is well-balanced between brevity and verbosity. Eubulides (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is an outstanding article and easily meets the FA criteria Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is an excellent article, informative and clear but also it importantly is an exciting article. Some of the insights from Cook's crew on certain events makes it a special account. I come from a family where the men had a long history of being sailors before 1900 and the article makes me want to sail the high seas like they did. Awesome. The only complaint is "The prospects if the ship sank were grim. ". I think that is stating the obvious and could be reworded... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, though its an exciting topic so the really hard thing would be to make this article boring. I agree the "prospects are grim" bit is a statement of the obvious, though I think it leads well into the following sentence. Still, I've spent an hour or so trying to reword it without success. What do you think - should I a) simply remove it altogether, or b) expand it to mention that Banks considered but rejected abandoning ship as it was too far and if he survived he'd be marooned, and that Cook thought of running the sinking ship onto the nearest island, then building something from her wreck that could maybe sail to Batavia. But neither option was very seriously considered, and then the fothering saved the day. Any suggestions?
    • On consideration I'd probably prefer to keep the "grim prospects" sentence as is, as I think it leads well into the rest of the paragraph, and is not entirely a statment of the obvious (shipwreck survival prospects sometimes being pretty good). Obviously, any other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A fine nomination with an impressive standard of writing. (I haven't examined for the other criteria, though.)
• " to Australia and New Zealand in 1769-71."—I'd be inclined to follow WP:LINK and not link anglophone country-names, or if you really want to, to section-link to their history sections (those whole articles are too large and diffuse to be beneficial as links in this context). ("Australia" is linked again further down, too, just before the more appropriate linking of Botany Bay, NSW".) And there are so many valuable links in that vicinity and the rest of the article that are better less diluted. WP:MOSDASHsays to use an en dash for ranges; but not to use range punctuation where there's an introductory preposition. Thus, "from 1769 to 1791" ... is that the correct meaning?
• Can scuttling be anything but deliberate? Perhaps it can ...?
• Comma required unless you mean the sheathing and caulking was to protect against a third deck, etc.
• Suddenly, metrics come first, which is much more comfortable to me; but whichever way, they need to be consistent.
• Apostrophe for officers' mess.

A joy to review. A few of the sentences rival Patrick White's descriptive narrative in A fringe of leaves! Tony (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PS WP:MOSDASH and the preceding hyphen section would be a good read. No hyphens after adverbial "ly"; I've fixed "full size"; and there are lots of ranges (day and page) in the Notes section that have hyphens rather than en dashes. Someone here (can't remember who) may very usefully run a bot to fix this aspect of Notes sections ... PING PING? Tony (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Wikilinks for Australia/NZ - done.
    • "From" and "to" vs "-"' - Done the one in the first sentence. I confess I find the MOSDASH isntructions a little confusing, so a particular thanks to Dabomb87 for fixing the other ones. If any have been missed please let me know.
    • Scuttling - An accidental scuttling is possible I suppose, but would be an embarassment of epic proportions for a Royal Navy vessel. Blackbeard once deliberately scuttled his flagship then pretended it was an accident so he could abandon his crew and flee with the loot, but that's as close to an accidental scuttling I can think of. Anyway, done - redundant word removed.
    • Comma - fixed, thanks.
    • Metrics - Do you mean in the journey length for the replica? If so, done. If not, let me know and I'll have another look through.
    • Officer′s mess - done, thanks for pointing this out. Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Well written and well sourced article. It, in my opinion, satisfies all FA criteria. I have only two comments:

1. In the lead: her crew sworn to secrecy about the southern continent they had discovered. But had they actually discovered any southern continent? It is indeed a strange sentence. The main text only says that To keep Endeavour’s voyages and discoveries secret, Cook confiscated the log books and journals of all on board and ordered them to remain silent about where they had been. I think the sentence from the lead should be removed or rewritten.
2. I am very interested what disease killed a third of the crew? Is anything known?

Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Good point - I changed it to "lands." Hope this addresses the issue, but if I've missed the point please let me know.
  • The earliest deaths sound like dysentery and the later ones malaria, though the first to die was the ship's surgeon and after that no one kept any lasting medical records. Banks described it as an inflammation of the lungs accompanied by a violent fever and physical collapse. Cook got it too, but made a fairly quick recovery. By coincidence Cook's 1st lieutenant Zachary Hicks died of TB, which he'd had since leaving England but finally succumbed to after leaving Batavia. One source (Hough) says disease killed 50,000 people a year in Batavia, and Cook's log says "the unwholsome air of Batavia is the death of more Europeans that any other place upon the Globe." Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    You did not change anything. I still see "southern continent". Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Odd, I was sure I did that yesterday. Done now, let me know if you'd like something other than how it reads now. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Can you add a note with information about diseases? Ruslik_Zero 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

        • Yep, should have done that when you asked last time. Don't have the references on hand, so it'll be a little while. Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

          • • Added disease types mention and reference. Both Hough and Blainey suggest the deaths around this time were dysentery other than 1st Lt Hicks (TB) and ship's master Molyneaux (drunkenness), though many of the crew were already weakened by malaria. Cook and Banks just called it "the flux" and their descriptions of symptoms include both diseases. I've gone with the references as they have the benefit of modern medicine in their identification. Malaria was almsot totallly unknown to the Royal Navy at the time, and there were no identified causes or cures for either condition in 1770. I think a longer dissertation on this in the article would be moving a little off-topic, but I'll put one in if you think it would add value. Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 - These issues should be easy to fix.

• File:Endeavour, Bayldon, Francis J. B.jpg - This image is hosted on Commons, which means it has to be in the PD in both the US and NZ, therefore we need a tag explaining why this image is in the PD in the US.

• File:Endeavour replica in Cooktown harbour.jpg - The uploader does not seem to be the same as the author, so the uploader could not have released the rights to the photo. Could you contact the uploader and/or the author and sort this out?

Looking forward to striking this objection soon. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for these. They're fair points, though I'm not an image expert and these two predate my work on this page so it'll take me a few days to work out how to fix them or if they should be replaced. With the second one, would that be addressed by [User:John Hill]] editing the commons page to reaffirm his release of the photo? If not, what should I do to address this? Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the issue with File:Endeavour replica in Cooktown harbour.jpg. Hesperian 12:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • We still need to have the author verify his relase of the rights at File:Endeavour replica in Cooktown harbour.jpg. If you could have John Hill release the license by signing on the image description, that will fix the problem. Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        • No we don't. We have his explicit release in a deleted revision here. That suffices. Hesperian 12:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
          • You have to be an administrator to see that page (I can't view it, for example). Releases have to be as available to the public as we can make them. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
            • • There is a difference between the claim and the proof. The claim must be highly visible, and it is. The proof is, unfortunately, in a deleted revision, and therefore accessible only to administrators. This still makes it far more accessible that our OTRS tickets, which are visible to even fewer people. Hesperian 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
                • OTRS is definitely not an ideal solution, I agree, but sometimes we have to resort to it. In this case, happily we do not. Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • Your opinion on this point is at odds with consensus, which is that OTRS is just fine, and there is no need for every image to offer publicly accessible proof that the license claimed is legitimate. Hesperian 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I confess I agree with Hesperian. However to resolve the issue I have replaced the John Hill image with this one, which is less visually striking but perhaps more historically relevant. The Bayldon image narrowly fails PD-1996, but I've found an acceptable and much older alternative which I'll upload today. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I would like to point out that John Hill is active. Hoever, if you would rather replace the image than contact him, that is fine. Awadewit (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
                • I've now done that too, thanks for the suggestion. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • Replaced Bayldon image with an Atkins from 1794. Hopefully this address the remaining query - feel free to let me know if there's more that needs doing. Euryalus (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support with one comment. You should utilize the |oclc= parameter in the cite cook template in your bibliography section. OCLC is a nice tool to use to locate a book quickly especially for those books that were pre-ISBN. You can look up your titles here. --Brad (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, done. Never knew there was such a thing. Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: While I agree that this is a well-written and comprehensive account, and interesting, too, there are still a few minor points requiring attention. For instance:-

• Lead
  • "...she [the ship] was forced to beach herself." I doubt this is literally true; should it not be "Cook was forced to beach her", or perhaps "the crew was forced to beach her"?
  • "American Revolution": "American Revolutionary War" or "American War of Independence" would be more precise
    • forced beaching - Done, or at least improved. Replaced first point with "was beached on the mainland for seven weeks for rudimentary repairs to her hull." The two "for"'s in the sentence trouble me slightly, if they bother anyone else let me know and I'll reword again.
    • Revolutionary War - Done. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Purchase and refit
  • It would be useful to have present-day equivalent values for the ship's cost. I normally use MeasuringWorth.com; their calculation gives figures of £265,000 and £326,000 respectively for the two cost figures you mention.
  • Banks should be described and linked on first, not second mention
  • "Cook and his passengers" - there were passengers? I imagine that you are referring to the scientific team, so perhaps passengers isn't the right word.
  • Last paragraph: can you say briefly why the ship carried armaments of this nature? Presumably they were in case of trouble in the unknown waters that were their destination; this could be clarified.
    • Measuringworth - Happy to do this, but how would I assert Measuringworth as a reliable source?
      • No problem. MeasuringWorth was founded by two professors of Economics, from UIC and Miami University respectively. Its advisory board has a host of academics from US and UK universities. The site has been accepted as reliable on many previous FACs. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Done, as footnote a. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Banks wikilink - Done.
    • Passengers - Done, or at least improved. Passengers in a naval sense, but I agree it wasn't clear. Let me know if it needs another go.
    • Armaments - will do tonight - there was something in one of the sources about protection from the French while near Europe and indigenous people in the Pacific, so I'll hunt that down and add it. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Was wrong about the French bit, the only source to discuss the perceived need for the guns refers to their use against hostile natives. This makes sense as they were small scale weaponry designed for anti-personnel combat. Have added their intended use to the text. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Outward voyage: "The voyage commenced with a landfall among the Madeira Islands." Surely the voyage commenced when they left Plymouth? Suggest reword.
  • Voyage commencement - will do tonight, as I should probably explain why they went to the Madeiras at all. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Done - replaced "Voyage commenced" with "The first port of call". Also expanded this section a little. Euryalus (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Northward to Batavia
  • Fourth paragraph begins "Despite this, the ship remained in very poor condition..." I'm not sure what "this" refers to; the last event recounted was the ship being struck by lightning. I think "Despite this" could be dropped.
  • The carpenter's quote contains nautical terms which won't be familiar to most readers, e.g. "main keep", midships", "larbord". It might be better to paraphrase what the carpenter said so that we can better understand the nature of the damage.
  • Final para, second sentence: there seems to be a disjunction between "shipworm" and "they". If "shipworm" refers to a condition (like for example woodworm), then I think "they" should be "it". Otherwise you should say "shipworms"
    • Despite this - Removed.
    • Carpenter's quote - I think the quote adds something to the "flavour" of the article, will have a think about how to address this and get back to you.
      • I agree the carpenter's account adds flavour. Why don't you just add wiktionary links for "midships" and "larbord" (correctly, "larboard")? The main keep, one might reasonably deduce, is the ship's main hold. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. Euryalus (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Shipworm - Done, changed to "shipworms." Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Return voyage: On a pernickity point of geography, the voyage from Cape Town to England cannot really be described as "across" the Atlantic.
  • Not sure I agree, but I've reworded the sentence to remove it. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Later service: "two tedious voyages" - suggest you remove the POV, or cite the description. ("routine" would suffice)
  • Done. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• General point: I'm uncertain about the value of the maps. The detail on each is mainly illegible, even when the maps are forced to their full size. On the "Track of Endeavour" map it is very difficult to find and follow Endeavour's track, given the multiplicity of lines.
  • I think the south pacific one is OK (the big one), but I can see the problem with the Torres Strait map. If I can find a good PD replacement I'll put it in, otherwise would you suggest one or both maps be removed and replaced with a more detailed text description of the voyage? I covered the Torres Strait-Batavia voyage only briefly because I'm trying to keep the focus on the ship as the aticle subject, rather than the voyage which is better covered here. But that's just my opinion, other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The larger map is marginally more legible. If no other reviewer sees it as a problem, leave it in. The second is more problematic, and doesn't really add to the value of the article. As the subject of the article is the ship, I think the Torres Strait journey is adequately covered by the text. My recommendation would be lose this map, though I won't oppose on this if you/other reviewers decide otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Re the small map - there's an alternative one by Cook himself, though as it was a navigation chart rather than for amateur interest its not at all clearer. I've also found a 1790's map showing Cook's opath through the straits, but with so little frame of reference that its really just a line between two other lines. Per Brianboulton's comment above, I'd prefer to keep the current map for the (admittedly limited) value it adds, but if anyone else prefers its removal (or if Brian presses the point even mildly) I'll call that consensus and take it out. Euryalus (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope to add my support when these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk)

• Support: All my points properly attended to. I leave the decision on maps to you. Great article now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support: well written, sourced and illustrated. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I've given this a quick copyedit, but my changes were very minor. This is in excellent shape—well done. Maralia (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Current ref 54 is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Odd, must have died in the last day or so. Replaced with Beaglehole. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Citations need some cleanup for consistent formatting (I left some sample edits, problems with dates and page numbers). Is one of these supposed to be an author? If so, author comes first in other citations ...

• "Interesting Relics". The Advertiser. Frederick Britten Burden & John Langdon Bonython, Adelaide South Australia. 24 October 1918. p. 4. Retrieved 23 July 2009.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks to Dabomb87 who fixed the inconsistent date formatting in the online refs. Re the 1918 Advertiser reference listed above, Burdon and Bonython were the publishers, though an examiantion of the publisher text on the last page of that edition of the paper indicates they did business under the name "J.L. Bonython & Co." I've replaced the individuals with the company name in the reference. There is no stated author of the article. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The citenews template not permitting the spelling out of "page", I have changed all the references to either "p." or "pp." for consistency. I think the issues raised in this comment are now addressed, but if I've missed something please let me know and I'll have a look back through. Euryalus (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref formatting looks good now (can hardly believe I failed to check it in my review; must be going soft). Maralia (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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