Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Morgan/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 [1].

Henry Morgan edit

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Morgan is one of the more interesting historical figures around. A privateer who was the scourge of the Spanish in the Caribbean who later became a Governor of Jamaica. He secured Jamaica as one of the jewels of the British Empire – and made himself extremely wealthy in the process. He is possibly better known to modern eyes through the books and films in which he is fictionalised, or perhaps the brand of rum which bears his name. This has recently been through the PR process to take some of the edges off, and I look forward to hearing further comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Port Royal map
  • File:Puerto_del_Príncipe_-_being_sacked_in_1668_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_19396.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
  • Non-US images on Commons should include info on copyright status in country of origin as well as the US
  • What is the source of the data presented in File:Lake_Maracaibo_map.png? Same with File:PortRoyalEarthquakeMap.jpg
  • File:Voorpagina_Americaensche_Zee-Roovers.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I've added, removed and altered those mentioned. Thanks again. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, but in some cases problems persist.
  • File:Henry_Morgan_in_colour.jpg has a tag stating the author is unknown, but the description identifies a named author. Same with File:Captain_Henry_Morgan_attacking_Panama.jpg, File:King_Charles_II_(Lely).jpg
  • For the two Morgan ones we know the author of the books from which the images came, but not the illustrator, which is why I went with the 'unknown' tag. If they are incorrect, which tag should it be? Many thanks – The Bounder (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an illustrator identified in the book (or, conversely, are they stated to be anonymous)? Is there a copyright statement in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No illustrator is named, and neither carry a copyright notice The Morgan in colour was published in 1684 (which pre-dates any copyright statutes); it çan be seen here. This is for the Panama image (first published in 1742). The Bounder (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. If Exquemelin did not create those illustrations, he shouldn't be listed as author in the image description. The 'unknown' tag also requires that you detail what steps you've taken to try to identify the author - the information you've provided here should work for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've added that information now, and tidied up the information in the Morgan colour description too. I think I have all the images now sorted out, but if I have overlooked something, could you let me know? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like you've changed one of the Morgan images and not the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I'd got them both (This edit for the colour image and this one for the Panama image). Have I missed one of the other images that needs working on? Thanks (and sorry if I'm making a mess of this). The Bounder (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - my mistake! I've now addressed that one with this edit. I think that should clear it up, but please let mw know if there are any other steps I should take. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Puerto_del_Príncipe_-_being_sacked_in_1668_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_19396.jpg needs a tag for the country of original publication. Same with File:Henry_Morgan's_attack_on_the_Castillo_de_San_Jeronimo,_Porto_Bello,_1669.jpg, File:Pyle_pirate_prisoner.jpg, File:Henry_Morgan_libel_news.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should now be OK, but please let me know if I've erred. I haven't edited the Pyle image, as this was a US publication and he's a US author. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto edit

Some comments, mostly on prose:

  • Very nitpicky, but "Much of Morgan's early life is unknown, although he was born in south Wales; it is not known how he made his way to the West Indies, or how he began his career as a privateer" reads awkwardly. Perhaps "Much of Morgan's early life is unknown. He was born in south Wales, but it is not known how he made his way to the West Indies, or how he began his career as a privateer"?
  • "Morgan was probably a member of a group of privateers led by Sir Christopher Myngs attacking cities and settlements on the Spanish Main. By 1663 he captained a ship within Myngs' fleet". If Morgan captained one of Myngs' ships, why is it only probable that he was a member of the group?
  • "Several sources state Morgan's father was Robert Morgan, a farmer." this suggests that this is uncertain, but doesn't say so explicitly, and no sources which contradict this are mentioned. What is the consensus about this identification? I note that the sources given which identify Morgan's father all significantly postdate the DWB's claim that attempts to identify Morgan's antecedents have all proved unsatisfactory.
    • Most indicate Robert as the father, but not all, and I don't think we can judge either way. We represent the uncertainty of the sources with the wording we have. - The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on "early career", we once again switch between the probabilistic "it is probable that Morgan served" and the certain "By 1663, Morgan captained". This is confusing.
  • How meaningful is it to say that £70,000 in 1668 was equivalent to £10m in 2016? Did they have equivalent purchasing power? Is that even meaningful when so many consumer goods today wouldn't have been available in 1668? I'm generally sceptical of this kind of equivalence...
  • "Morgan admitted he had met the French officials, but pointed out that this was diplomatic relations, rather than anything duplicitous." Pointed out? It certainly sounds like there's a case to be made that Morgan was doing exactly what he was accused of; "pointed out" seems a bit PoV to me...

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tweaked, although I'd doubt this is a POV thing! - The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caeciliusinhorto, thank you very much for your comments; I have adopted all your suggestions, aside from the one on his father. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are still a number of instances in the article where we read that such and such an amount of money was equivalent to howevermuch in 2016; I continue to be dubious about this.
I know there are two schools of thought on the use of the conversion, but I think it's useful for readers to give them a frame of reference. - The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For a lot of Morgan's life, we don't really know anything, and so the article says, for instance "It is unknown how Morgan made his way to the Caribbean", before giving four separate possibilities. However, in (almost?) all of these cases, no information is given to the reader as to e.g. what scholars think of these various suggestions. In the case of Morgan's travel to the Carribean, each of the four separate possibilities has a different source, three from the 2000s and one from the 1950s. Which is fine as far as it goes. But would it be possible, without straying too far into WP:SYNTH, to say that scholars have generally sided with x or y when answering this question? (And similarly for other points of uncertainty: are the four examples of people who identify Morgan's father as farmer Robert the only four examples, or are they four of hundreds?)
I think it may cross over to SYNTH to try and put weight onto one over the others. I've scanned over four of the sources and they give their preferred path, but without questioning it. I've tweaked the opening para of the early life section to show the DNB stresses that the early life is lacking in reliable information. – The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. On the question of sources, WP:WIAFA specifies that we should look for "high-quality reliable sources" in featured articles. Are sources from 1911 (Barbour), 1932 (Gosse) and 1936 (Cundall) still considered to be "high-quality reliable sources"?
Yes, they are still used as sources by more recent historians (Cundall was a source for the DNB, for example). – The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Dank for reminding me of this: I'm still not keen on the conversions, but unless anyone else objects I'm not going to push you on that. Happy to support this one for now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on this. If others object to the conversion I'll remove it, but I still think it provides more contextual help than acts as a hinderance. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mitchell edit

Ooh, interesting article. I'm rather partial to a Morgan's Spiced and Coke (although it rarely ends at one!). This is very nice work; just a few comments:

  • We generally bold honorifics like "sir"; most publications treat it as part of the name (see MOS:HONORIFIC).
  • I don't know if there's much that can be done about it, but the opening "was a Welsh privateer" and the allegiance to the Kingdom of England in the infobox struck me as a juxtaposition.
    • The only thing I can think of is a footnote to explain that Wales was part of the Kingdom of England at the time, but I'm not sure where it would be best placed. Any thoughts? - The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was involved in the Sack of Campeche" Morgan was or the ship was? Presumably Morgan but it feels like the ship is the subject at this point of the sentence.
  • "in the Caribbean and what is now central America" Was it not always? Also, isn't it one proper noun (ie Central America, with a capital C)?
  • "was given the rank of Admiral" we don't treat ranks as proper nouns unless they're attached to a name (took me a moment to track down the relevant part of the MoS but it's MOS:MILTERMS)
  • Suggest linking the ODNB on the one occasion it's mentioned in the prose
  • "destroyed the ship and over 200 of its complement" seems a rather blazé way to report the deaths of 200 sailors
  • "£50,000 (£7,067,848 in 2016 pounds[37])" Do we need to be so precise (I doubt it's possible to calculate precisely anyway); wouldn't it do to round it down to 7 million, or perhaps up to 7.1 million? Likewise with "£853,521 in 2016 pounds"
  • "and increased his intake of alcohol" Do we know what he drank? From his presence in Jamaica and his legacy I presume rum?
    • Anything he could get his hands on, I think! Although rum is the obvious possibility, madeira, brandy and wine were also being shipped over to the Carribbean at the time, and none of the biographies identify what Morgan's choice was. - The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from those minor quibbles, this is an excellent article on a fascinating subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks HJ Mitchell, and I am extremely grateful for your comments. I have addressed them as best I can, which I hope is suitable. If you have any thoughts as to the Kingdom of England footnote, I would enjoy reading them too. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you: thank you very much; a very happy new year to you! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments on it, of which only the first two are substantive:

  • Per WP:LEAD (especially WP:LEADPARAGRAPH) I'd suggest restructuring the first paragraph of the lead so that it summarises who Morgan was, without getting into the nuts and bolts of his early life.
  • More generally, I think that the lead is a bit too detailed - there's no need for details here (eg, "Under the authority of the commission, Morgan attacked Puerto Principe (now Camagüey) and Porto Bello (in modern Panama). The raids brought the privateers between £70,000 and £100,000 of money and valuables" could be replaced with something like "In X and Y Morgan conducted successful and personally highly lucrative raids on Puerto Principe (now Camagüey) and Porto Bello (in modern Panama)".
  • "the authorisation to colonial governors that they could issue letters of marque against the Dutch" - this is a bit awkward
  • The first three sentences in the para starting with "Morgan and his men arrived at Old Panama City" all start with "Morgan": this could be diversified a bit
  • " it included a call to revoke all letters of marque and similar commissions" - wouldn't a treaty have been more specific than calling for things? Did the countries "agree", "commit" or similar to get rid of privateers?
  • "In 1684 an account of Morgan's exploits was published by Exquemelin, in a Dutch volume entitled De Americaensche Zee-Roovers (trans: About the Buccaneers of America)" - can a brief summary of the book's claims against Morgan be provided?
    • Only in a few places that we identify within the text. It was more a case of a few exaggerations here and there to create the wrong impression, then a few big lies (like the use of nuns as a human shield at Porto Bello. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the "Map of Port Royal showing shorelines before and after the earthquake" should be omitted: it doesn't really show anything terribly relevant to Morgan as the text in the article notes only that his grave vanished when the town was devastated Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK - I thought it may be useful to show just how much the shores had moved, but now deleted. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I am still working on the first two, but the others were covered (where appropriate) by this series of edits. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick-D, I've attacked the lead (in this edit) as you suggested: was this what you thought, or did you have something else in mind? Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I've run out of time to look at this today: I'll follow up tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for your input and comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO REVIEWERS. If I could ask reviewers to have a brief look at Talk:Henry Morgan‎#‎Sub sections this talk page thread to discuss whether this sub division of the article is necessary. All comments and views are welcome. Many thanks - The Bounder (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I'm not sure some of what's in the lead is entirely supported by the article text. For example, the lead says he died "largely as a result of excessive drinking"; the text confirms he drank excessively but does not so definitively link it to his death. Cites in the lead may be needed.
    • Having gone over the sources again, they all discuss his heavy drinking immediately before writing about his death (often in same paragraph), but none specifically put the cause down to the death, so I've removed in information from the lead. (We don't make the connection in the body, so I've left it as is. - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN for the Curtis book leads to a 2007 edition, and I can't find a 2009 one
  • Scientific American should be italicized, as should Britannica
  • I'm a little confused by your Online/Journals split - for example, you've got DWB and Scientific American in online, but then ODNB in journals - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The DWB isn't available in book format (as far as I am aware), and the Scientific American article looks like online only, rather than copied from a hard copy publication. ONDB is a hard copy. I can see how this may cause confusion, however, so I'll move the DNB into online. - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for your input here yet again: I hope my changes are all satisfactory. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Iridescent edit

Version reviewed is this one; as usual, I've intentionally not read anyone else's comments or the talkpage so there may be some duplication.

  • I know the weird mix of spaced and unspaced dashes in the section headings is complying with the MOS prescription that if there's a "c." the dash is spaced and if there isn't, it isn't, but it makes the TOC look horrible. Is there any way around it, even if it means quietly dropping the circas, or even losing the dates from the headings altogether? (Or, of course, ignoring the MOS and not spacing the dashes in either case—if "Early years in the Caribbean, c.1658–1667" is good enough for the OUP, the world will not come to an end if we do the same.)
    • I've removed the circas to stop the MoS circus! - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the comments on my talkpage, He was born in south Wales needs an explanatory footnote regarding the status of Monmouth (I'd say put in a second link to the existing footnote 1).
    • I'd already added one (footnote 2). Better where it is, or as a note to a note? - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does that work? Revert if you disagree. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent - even better. Thanks for that; I never knew you could duplicate notes like this - very useful. - The Bounder (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard Browne, who served as surgeon under Morgan in 1670 stated that Morgan had travelled as a "private gentleman" soon after the 1655 capture of Jamaica by the English, or he may have been kidnapped in Bristol and transported to Barbados, where he was sold as a servant. is unclear—does this mean "Browne said he either travelled as a private gentleman or was kidnapped" or "Browne said he travelled as a private gentleman but he may actually have been kidnapped"?
    • I've added a minor tweak of "either" to clarify the choice of two. - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is possibly a really stupid question, but if privateers were commissioned by government to attack the country's enemies, was Spain actually an enemy at the time? Looking at Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660), the war between England and Spain ended at the Restoration in 1660 and Myngs's raids were undertaken without the consent of the government.
    • I'll add a footnote on this. Although the wars ended, that was a European affair: the situation in the Caribbean, with the Spanish dominance there meant a whole different situation. - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now added. - The Bounder (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's reasonable to assume readers will know (at least vaguely) where Havana is, it's not reasonable to assume they know where Tortuga or Camagüey are (I've never heard of either before). Yes, readers can click the links, but we shouldn't be sending people on treasure hunts for such basic information.
    • Now clarified (I think most watchers of the Pirates of the Carribbean films will have heard of Tortuga, but have no idea of where it is!) - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea why the target of the raid was changed to Camagüey, which looking at the map appears to be the one point in Cuba least suited to an invasion by sea?
  • Did he ever hang the murderer in the end, or was he just saying this to shut the French up?
  • The 200 French privateers, unhappy with the division of the treasure and the murder of their countryman, left Morgan's service.—what happened to them? At this point in the narrative Morgan is still 50 miles behind enemy lines—did he just dump them in Cuba and leave them to swim home?
    • They came - and returned - in their own ships. I've added this. - The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story of the castles and the giant ladders raises more questions than answers. Did he bring the ladders wide enough for three men to climb abreast with him in the 23 canoes, or did he build them on his arrival?
  • The {{inflation}} template measures the varying costs of low-value activities of daily life. It's fine for the changing price of bread or train tickets, but you can't use it for capital costs, let alone the value of the gold stripped from a looted city. (See the big warning box on the template itself.) For post-1830 dates you can get away with using the UKNGDPPC index, but pre-Industrial Revolution this is also meaningless. Personally, I'd leave the conversion out altogether and just point out that the entire English government at the time had an annual budget of £1.2–2 million. If you are going to attempt currency conversions, you won't be able to get anything more accurate than "within an order of magnitude", and certainly don't want to make precise claims like £5,263 (£853,521 in 2017 pounds).
    • Removed, and I'll add the English budget figures shortly. Caeciliusinhorto also raised a question on the use of these, and I promised to remove them if a second reviewer asked for it. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than the English budget figure, I've gone for the equivalent levels the DNB gives instead - measured against the exports of Jamaica and Barbados. - The Bounder (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re a huge quantity of merchandise and slaves—were these existing slaves of the locals which Morgan had taken for himself, or was he actually enslaving the Spaniards?
  • Is "Attack of Panama" what it's actually called, or is this a typo?
  • The loss of Panama so soon after the signing of the treaty—by "loss of", are we just talking about destruction, or had Morgan actually annexed it? I would read "loss of" as the latter, and I suspect most present-day readers would as well.
  • Morgan had been a heavy drinker for several years, but he received the news of the revocation of his positions badly is a non sequitur.
  • The piece on the libel action talks about a single book published by Crooke and Malthus, but the accompanying press cutting talks about the libel action being about two different books, one by each. Which is correct?
    • It referred to the same book by Exquemelin, which was issued in Britain by two different booksellers. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the bit about the finding of the Encarnación really need to be here? "Archaeologists found a ship which didn't belong to him" isn't of much interest, and having it here at the end means that a very dramatic narrative ends on something of a wet fart.
  • In 2008 the Captain Morgan brand was sold to Diageo isn't in the source provided, and doesn't tally with the 2001 date in Captain Morgan. The history section on the Diageo website isn't great, but would appear to confirm the 2001 date.
    • No idea why I put 2008 - I know it was 2001! - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jamaica as the centerpiece of the British Empire in America—I appreciate this is a quote, but WTF? The American Revolution hadn't yet happened; I'm sure Virginia, New York, Boston and Montreal would all dispute that statement fairly strongly.
    • I'll look into this shortly and how better to put this across, but Blalock is an American academic writing for the American Dictionary of National Biography! I suspect he's talking about the modern, or at least post-1776, British Empire. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've re-worked it out of a quote to give the same impression, but not as the "centerpiece". - The Bounder (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this isn't your fault, but that "Pirates of the Modern Age" navbox really grates on me. I don't care what the historiographical terminology is—I guarantee that if I go outside and ask 100 people "when did the modern age begin", not a single one of them will give me a year as early as the 1660s.
    • I've boldly tweaked it to "Pirates since the 1660s". We shall see if it lasts that way. - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a daunting list but they're all relatively minor quibbles. ‑ Iridescent 23:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Iridescent - your thoughts are much appreciated. I've made a start and will ping when I've sorted them all. Only a couple need me to go back to the sources for extra input, so this should be done quite soon. Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Iridescent, All your suggestions done - I hope to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is anything else you want to to revisit, or work on further. Many, many thanks for your input: it has been most valuable. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That all looks fine—happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your comments and support: they are very welcome. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Very interesting so far. The usual nitpicks:

  • "privateer. He was probably a member of a group of privateers" repetition. I would substitute a synonym or else change one "privateer" into an adjective.
  • "When diplomatic relations between the Kingdom of England and Spain were worsening in 1667," "when" does not relate well to a period of time. Possibly change "were worsening" to "worsened".
  • "Morgan subsequently conducted successful and personally highly lucrative raids " I would cut "personally" as unneeded, considering you've already made it clear he profited from the raids.
  • " Shortly afterwards" this follows a "subsequently" and so is a bit remote from the last dating.
  • " destroying a large Spanish defence squadron as he escaped." I would cut "defence" as not really needed and probably raising more questions than answered (little late for defence)
  • "In 1671 Morgan attacked Old Panama City, landing on the Caribbean coast of Panama and traversing the Isthmus before he attacked the city, which was on the Pacific coast. " I would cut "of Panama" and possibly "Old". I might also make Isthmus lower case.
  • "although the privateers gathered less spoils than in other raids." While "less spoils" is, I suppose, correct, it reads a bit oddly. Consider "profited less" for "gathered less spoils"
  • "leading figures of government, including Charles II. Charles" close repetition. Not 100 percent positive the king was a figure of government, technically.
  • The Jamaica offices should probably get links.
  • "although a significant investment was needed to obtain the high returns" I would cut "a" and "the"
  • " and took part in the attacks on Santiago, Cuba and the Sack of Campeche on the Yucatán Peninsula" not clear if there were multiple attacks on Santiago or if Campeche makes it plural.
  • " and brought in significant revenue to the island." I might cut "in"
  • "As the planting community of 5,000 was still in a nascent form," nascent form reads oddly.
  • "A privateer was granted a letter of marque which gave them a licence to attack and seize vessels, normally against a specific country," there is a mismatch between "a privateer" and "them". I might also change "against" to "of"
  • "A proportion" I might say "A portion"
  • "In August 1665 Morgan, along with his fellow captains John Morris and Jacob Fackman, " I might cut "his"
  • "Curaçao, although he did not attack the city, " Willemstad?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks. All your points addressed in these edits. Thank you so much for taking the time to look over this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Santiago, Cuba" maybe just "Santiago de Cuba".
  • "Before a riot between the French and English sailors began" I would change "began" to "could begin".
  • "Morgan announced the plan of attacking Porto Bello" I might say "Morgan announced a plan to attack Porto Bello"
  • "and the murder of their countryman" it was not clear earlier that the man died.
  • "returned to Tortuga.[32] Morgan and his ships returned briefly" returned/returned.
  • "On 11 July 1668 Morgan anchored short of his target and transferred his men to 23 canoes, where they paddled to within three miles (4.8 km) of the target." multiple points. First, target/target. Second, I would say "which" rather than "where"
  • "approached the castle" which?
  • I would separate out the material about the religious people being used as human shields and place it after the account of the taking of the castle, in a separate paragraph, or it may colour the reader's perception of how the castle was taken. Thus, I would move up the final sentence to after the word "quickly", and then separate out the controversial account.
  • "President of Panama" is this an accurate title?
  • "the average salary" I might say "the average annual earnings"
  • "which was the price of Morgan's commission" As you use "commission" shortly thereafter, I would make this "letter of marque". And doesn't this contradict what you earlier said about the privateers being able to keep all booty from land attacks?
  • I'll check that in the morning. Cheers – The Bounder (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the caveat we mention (one that Morgan used up to the hilt and further): "if Morgan was able to provide evidence of a potential Spanish attack, the attacks on cities were justifiable under the terms of his commission". Regardless of evidence (always obtainable if you torture someone), Morgan was going to attck the cities. - The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morgan and the captains seated on one side of the table were blown into the water and survived; the flotilla's four captains on the other side of the table were all killed." I would cut "flotilla's"
  • "The French captain knew the approaches for the ships to take, which was through a narrow and shallow channel." "approaches" goes to "was", but "were" doesn't really improve things. Possibly, "The French captain knew the approaches to the lake, through a narrow and shallow channel"
  • "outside the city" Maracaibo or Gibraltar?
  • Done to here for now with these edits; more to follow in the morning. Many thanks for these comments. – The Bounder (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ten ships and 800 men" ... "fire the fortress's 11 guns" "20 miles" I'm not sure I understand your practice for rendering numbers as words.
  • I thought this was the MoS prescribed manner - one to ten as words, 11 and up as numerals. Have I got that wrong? - The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the narrow passage to Lake Maracaibo, where the San Carlos de la Barra Fortress was sited." since they were already on the lake, this should probably be phrased in terms of passage to the Caribbean.
  • It's not clear what was contained in the Spanish offers that Morgan put to his men.
  • "to catch the ropes and sails of Magdalen and ensure the vessels would become entangled when the fire or explosion took place." I would cut the final seven words.
  • "flag ship" you use "flagship" elsewhere
  • A boat is not synonymous with a ship.
  • "Morgan still needed to pass the San Carlos de la Barra Fortress, but was still out-gunned by the stronghold, which had the ability to destroy the privateer fleet if it tried to pass." when last we encountered the fortress, Morgan had spiked and buried its guns. This should be explained.
  • "and raised 15,000 pesos." "raised" may be understood to "successfully solicited". I might say "secured" and add "from the wreck"
  • " and a huge quantity of merchandise and local slaves." I'm uncomfortable using "quantity" to describe human beings.
  • "The privateers faked a landing of their forces in preparation of a landward attack on the fort." I might strike "in preparation of a landward attack on the fort".
  • "That night, while the Spanish were facing toward where they thought the privateers were," maybe "That evening, with Spanish forces deployed to repel a landing,
  • "before Morgan and his men made their way back to Port Royal unscathed" I might change "before" to "and"
  • "a pro-Spanish faction had the ear of King Charles II" I might add a "gained" before "the ear"
  • "Modyford reproved Morgan for his action," You use "reproved", in quotes, earlier on to indicate Morgan getting a slap on the wrist from Modyford; this seems a little more serious so I would use another word. --Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks. All these addressed in these edits. Please let me know if there are any that need re-addressing. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few more:
  • "army of privateers was the largest that gathered in the Caribbean" a bit awkward. I'd make it clearer that this was at this time.
  • "They were faced by" opposed by
  • "down a ravine to a small hill on the Spanish right flank." the ravine was higher than the hill?
  • " if his troops lost to the privateers ... after the privateer's victory;" while the second reference can be taken to be referring to Morgan, it still could be mistaken for a typographical error.
  • "a warm and positive welcome" I'm afraid I'm not clear on what that might be in 1591.
  • "The historian Violet Barbour considers it probable that one of the Spanish conditions was the removal of Modyford from the Governorship. Before the attack on Panama, Sir Thomas Lynch was given a commission to replace Modyford. Following diplomatic pressure from Spain, Lynch was instructed to arrest Modyford and return him to England." The sequence of events is not clear. I imagine that the Spanish were originally content to see Modyford replaced, but the sack of Panama City, which is not even on the same ocean as Jamaica, got them hopping mad and they insisted on his arrest. In any event, this should be more clearly stated.
  • "Morgan was temporarily stranded on the island until picked up by a passing merchant ship" and the others?
  • "Bindloss and Morgan received recompense for those who signed." maybe "Bindloss and Morgan received a commission for each one signed."
  • "criticism of their action in London was fermented" possibly "fomented" for the last word?
  • "Morgan still retained his position on the Assembly of Jamaica." I'm not sure you've mentioned this.
  • " Howard Pyle's 1921 work, Howard Pyle's Book of Pirates." It's not precisely a 1921 work as Pyle died in 1911 and his publisher assembled some of his pirate tales and illustrations. Suggest a slight rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Wehwalt. These all addressed in these edits. Thanks again, The Bounder (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellently done. Yo ho ho and a bottle of ... well, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is excellent news: thank you very much for your time and patience on this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • Citations #141 and 142 say "AFI:Captain Blood" and "AFI:BlackSwan" but I don't see an "AFI" listed as author in the source section?
  • Breaking the sources into "books", "online resources" and "journals and magazines" makes it more difficult to find sources based on the short footnotes (i.e. I have to search three different lists to figure out what "Thomas 2014" is.
  • Footnote #1 is "Britannica: Monmouthshire" but there is no author listed in the sources as "Britannica" ...
  • Footnote #127 is "US Geological Survey" but there is no author listed in the sources as "US Geological Survey"...
  • Footnote #145 is "Diageo history" but the nearest match in sources is "Diageo Company History" - I assume they are the same?
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your review, and congratulations on your recent successful RfA – a good decision reached. For all these sources there is no listed author, so I have tried to provide what I hope is a logical description of the sources below, so AFI is the American Film Institute, Britannica is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc. There is no real need to searching through the lists to find the sources: the hyperlinks for the reference "Britannica: Monmouthshire" will drop down straight onto the relevant source. The division of sources by type is one I have seen in numerous academic works, but in this instance I copied it from a couple of articles I had read on Wiki before, Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)#Sources and S. O. Davies#Sources, both of which are FAs from Brian Boulton. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually - there is a need. If someone prints out the book form or reads in some other form than through the computer - they will have to look through the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah - I didn't realise that we had to format things for all media viewing. Thank you, I shall remember that for next time. Do you have any suggestions for renaming while retaining the three sections, which I think should be retained? Many thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest just standardizing - either use the name of the article in the short footnote or put the AFI/Britannica/US Geo as the author in the long citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's great. I'll address that later this evening and ping when it's done. Thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ealdgyth, All now done and thanks very much. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

The Bounder, I think this'd be your first FA if promoted? In that case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use while avoiding close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all newbs to jump through. One of the above reviewers may be able to do it, or else you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ian Rose, Yes it is. I'll ping Ealdgyth as the source reviewer and Nikkimaria as someone I've seen doing source reviews to see if they are able to help out (or anyone else, if they see this!). If neither of them as able to, I'll place a note on the FAC talk. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi one and all (pinging all those who have commented and reviewed so far: Nikkimaria, Caeciliusinhorto, HJ Mitchell, Nick-D, Iridescent, Wehwalt and Ealdgyth). As Ian Rose has requested a spot check on the sources, are any of you able to pick up on this? I'm not sure if any of you wil have access to the sources, so I would be happy to email you scans of specific pages (or downloads of DNB pages) to make the process easier - just let me know the page/source and email me so I have your email address, and I'll ping them over. Many thanks if anyone is able to take this extra step on. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the weekend if nobody else has got to it by then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HJ Mitchell, there have been no takers so far, so if you get the chance I'd be very grateful. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check by Laser brain edit

  • Fn 6 - You present the story of his being sold as a servant as something that "may" have happened, but the source cited says it's "probably untrue", and says Morgan won a libel suit over it. So I don't think you are representing the source correctly.
    • Probably untrue means possibly true. The story of him being sold as a servant is something that is stated as an unquestioned fact in other sources, thus the phrasing here.
  • Fn 6 - I also have a concern about close paraphrasing:
  • Our text: "kidnapped in Bristol and transported to Barbados, where he was sold as a servant."
  • Source text: "kidnapped in Bristol and sold as a servant in Barbados"
  • Personally I don't see that as too close, but I'll swap out 'kidnapped' with 'abducted': anything more would be a little too much like linguistic gymnastics to avoid the most efficient way of putting this. – The Bounder (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 34 - Citation supports the text, but I think you ought to give pp. 45–46 as the citation. The narrative runs over those two pages and it isn't until p. 46 where we see the town and castles captured.
    • Covered in the first citation, but added the extra page to this. - The Bounder (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 90 - The citations support the text, but I have another concern about close paraphrasing:
  • Our text: "slipped away with the majority of the plunder."
  • Source text: "slipped away ... with the greater part of the plunder"
  • I started checking some citations to Breverton and I have concerns about the reliability of this publication. His works seem scarcely reviewed or not well-reviewed, and the publisher is a small Welsh publisher that focuses on nationalist topics. I don't see much on their web site that instills me with confidence in their editorial or submission standards. Breverton himself has a marketing background and is not an academic or trained historian. What makes this meet WP:RS in your opinion?
  • Addendum: I see now that Breverton actually operates that publisher. In my mind that makes this book self-published and further reduces the likelihood that there was any editorial oversight. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is listed as a source in other works, including:
  • Latimer, Jon (2009). Buccaneers of the Caribbean: How Piracy Forged an Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Thomas, Graham (2014). The Buccaneer King: the Story of Captain Henry Morgan. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Maritime.
  • Winchester, Simon (2011). Atlantic: A Vast Ocean of a Million Stories. London: HarperPress - The Bounder (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of time for right now, but based on my spot checks I think further review is needed for faithfulness to sources, close paraphrasing, and possibly reliability of sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Laser brain. I've dealt with these (hopefully suitably), and should you have any further comments I'd be happy to deal with them. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional checks:

  • I was unable to locate the Thomas book using the ISBN cited on either Google Books or Amazon—please check? When I finally found it on amazon.uk, it's listed with a different ISBN and it seems that the 2015 re-publication under a different title is more popular.
    • It's the Kindle ISBN, according to the Kindle copy I have (if you send me your email and I can send a screenshot of the relevant page). It shows up in Google if you search for "9781473835221". – The Bounder (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 8 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing
  • Fn 17 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing
  • Fn 69 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing
  • Fn 93 - I found the text in this book, but on p. 663. P. 251 seems to be about coffee and nothing about this time period. Please check your page number.
    • Weird...no idea how that happened, but now altered. – The Bounder (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 94 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for these additional checks: all now dealt with. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SarahSV edit

Hi The Bounder, I have a question about how you've chosen the sources. The only contemporaneous primary source I can see is Alexandre Exquemelin's The Buccaneers of America (1684). There are other primary sources, but you've cited the secondary sources, rather than citing them directly.

Regarding the secondary sources, which of the book sources are scholarly sources?

Looking at Talty, just as one example—he tells a good story, but he doesn't seem to cite his sources. For example, the article says: "Historians disagree on the value of treasure Morgan collected during his expedition. Talty writes that the figures range from 140,000 to 400,000 pesos, and that owing to the large army Morgan assembled, the prize-per-man was relatively low, causing discontent." Does Talty cite a source for that? Also, he isn't an historian, as the sentence implies, and you don't say who he is on first reference.

Another example: a primary source would be better where you quote Morgan: "we found seventy men had been pressed to go against Jamaica". You use Pope 1978, but it's on Google as originating from a report by Morgan to Thomas Modyford, Jamaica's governor, so that's the source you should try to track down, assuming that's correct. It isn't always possible to find the primary sources, but it's always better to use them if you can, so long as you make sure you're using them as the scholarly sources do. SarahSV (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The applicable policy, WP:PRIMARY, suggests using secondary sources in place of primary ones, which is what I've gone with. I've not used Exquemelin directly as he isn't reliable. Talty is a journalist, which is an acceptable source of reliable information. The Bounder (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY cautions against using them badly—don't use them to come up with your own interpretation, for example—but they're often the best sources to use. You have to make sure you're familiar with how the secondary sources use them; the article should be framed by high-quality secondary sources, preferably scholarly sources in an article like this. But there's no point in citing Pope 1978 for a quote from Morgan if you can cite Morgan directly. You'd be surprised at how often the secondary sources get the primary sources wrong.
Talty is a freelance writer, but you've introduced him as an historian. I don't know whether his book is a good source for this. If he doesn't cite his sources, I'd say it isn't, because without sources how do you know that what he's saying is correct? SarahSV (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article sits happily on the right side of the PRIMARY policy. I'd disagree that a lack of citations means it isn't a good source; Pope doesn't use then either, nor do most works aimed at a non-academic readership.
I haven't introduced Talty as a historian, I introduced him further up the page as someone who has written a history of Morgan. In the section in question, I have said historian disagree, which they do. I will tweak the wording to remove the possible implication. – The Bounder (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a history article, and you would like it to be an FA, which means it needs a high degree of precision and must use the best sources, preferably scholarly sources. Otherwise the article will repeat mistakes and myths that have crept into the non-academic literature about this person. If Talty tells you: "the figures range from 140,000 to 400,000 pesos", you have to know how Talty knows that. SarahSV (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talty contains an extensive bibliography from which the information will have come. The other sources also contain ranges of figures, (and equally long bibliographies); very few of the sources use citations, including the established historians, like Jon Latimer (published by Harvard U Press), Andrew Lycett, etc use inline citations. The best sources have been used, in other words. Let me spin this around: which "scholarly sources" about Morgan are out there that have not been used in this article? - The Bounder (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked above which of the books are scholarly sources. Latimer is one, and he does cite his sources. Are there any others? SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask again: which "scholarly sources" about Morgan are out there that have not been used in this article? - The Bounder (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. You wrote the article, and you've nominated it for review, so I'm asking which of your sources are the academic ones. SarahSV (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography section is here. I've laid it out as clearly as I can to help readers, so it should be easy for you to make the judgement yourself. I await any further thoughts you may have about any scholarly sources you think may have been missed. - The Bounder (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think SlimVirgin has stated valid concerns here and I've shared my concern above (regarding Breverton) that some of the heavily cited works used here are not scholarly works by historians. I would need more information about how Breverton is cited and whether he is considered by historians to be authoritative before I'm prepared to accept his self-published book as a reliable source. I am also wary of retellings of primary sources especially when they vary and may not have gotten the source material correct. In terms of potentially missing scholarly works, I've done a cursory library search and found some promising writings from the database Welsh Journals Online. Was that database searched while researching the article? --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it was searched. The information from the English language sources does not diverge from the other sources used here. Some of those sources are also rather questionable in the historiography used (stating as fact information that has either been dismissed or heavily questioned in other sources).
    • If she has concerns, then she is free to highlight the sources she finds questionable and adds details of any scholarly sources she thinks may have been missed that would add something different to the information in the article. - The Bounder (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example: "In response Modyford commissioned Morgan 'to do and perform all manner of exploits, which may tend to the preservation and quiet of this island'." This is sourced to Jeremy Paxman, a television presenter, in his book, Empire: What Ruling the World Did to the British, which doesn't cite the source. That isn't an RS for an FA. If you google the quote, you'll find it in Richard Frohock, Buccaneers and Privateers, University of Delaware Press, 2012, p. 30, which gives the context, more of the quotation, and discusses the primary source at length.
    I'm sorry, but it seems as though the article has gathered together sources of different quality, rather than focusing on the most appropriate for each point. SarahSV (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the quote correct? Right words, right order, no misinterpretation? - The Bounder (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's definitely not the point. The quotation seems to come from The present state of Jamaica (1683), which discusses Morgan. I can't see that mentioned in the article. Is that a primary source you ruled out because it's unreliable? SarahSV (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't get bloody snarky - there's no need, and it'll do nothing but piss me off to no good effect. I have also not said that primary sources are unreliable, so please don't misrepresent what I have said: I said one primary source (Exquemelin) was unreliable. He lost a bloody libel case for crying out loud, so yes, in my book that makes him an unreliable source.
I've used one quote from Paxman, nothing else. It is, as you have seen and acknowledged, a correct quote used in the right way. If it's that important to you, I'll swap out Paxman for the other source with no other changes needed to the text, meaning or anything else needed. - Jesus, I've not seen anything like this at FAC before, and running through several of the other articles on review, many of then have weaker sources than this without question. These are reliable sources, being used in an appropriate manner, but if you want me to jump through hoops by swapping one source for a different source with no changes to the texts, I'll do that's for the sake of the article, but you can cut the snark for a start. – The Bounder (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't snark. Frohock is a subject-matter expert. He discusses a key primary source that isn't mentioned in your article. My question is why you left it out. You mentioned some primary sources not being reliable, so that was my question.
There are people who've devoted years of their lives to studying this topic and period. To get this article to FA, you need to find those people, and tell us what they say. And also make yourself familiar with the primary sources, so that you can tell us what the scholarly sources say about them too, as Frohock does. For example, when discussing The present state of Jamaica, he talks about the "authority of multiple witnesses, a standard measure of credibility in seventeenth-century evaluations of testimony". That's the kind of discussion that would make this article more interesting and authoritative. SarahSV (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a snarky comment, and unnecessary. You misrepresented what I have said previously, and have repeated the same misrepresentation, despite my clarification. Let me repeat it once again to make sure it gets through: I DID NOT SAY PRIMARY SOURCES ARE UNRELIABLE: I said that ONE source was unreliable (the one that was on the losing end of a libel action. Don't misrepresent me again please. - The Bounder (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Bounder, I don't see anything in SV's remarks that I would remotely consider snark. There's no call for responding that way. Many topics that pass through FAC have straightforward coverage and the scholarly/reliable sources are easy to identify. This is a larger topic that's been the subject of many works, and so we have to endeavor to use the best and most rigorous sources. The goal is the best material for our readers. --Laser brain (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is that a primary source you ruled out because it's unreliable? " is snarky and unnecessary. No need to try and defend it, im I'm unwatchlisting this. Good work everyone. - The Bounder (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Can you withdraw this please. I think this is being blown out of proportion, and good secondary sources have been used throughout. Getting this to FA isn't worth having to put up with misrepresentation or unnecessary snark. I will stand by what I have said earlier: running through several of the other articles at FAC, I see that many of then have weaker sources than this without question. - The Bounder (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I would encourage the nominator to stick with this if possible, having come so far. I'm sure these issues can be sorted out without too much difficulty. Having said that, if you really wish to withdraw this article, it is your decision. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: FYI I attempted to engage the nominator here about this since they said they were unwatching the page but didn't get much traction. I had hoped they would return after cooling off a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. @The Bounder: just in case you didn't see that message, I'll try a ping! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, FTR, I did see The Bounder's ping to me but preferred to let it ride for a day to see if anything changed. I would still like to give him a chance to respond to Sarastro's ping above before actioning the withdrawal request. Cheers, 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I had started to write this comment just after my last post, but when I saw the withdrawal request I didn't post it. Having seen Ian Rose's comment on The Bounder's page (and please see my response to Ian), I'm posting it for future reference.
It seems that significant parts of the article are based on tertiary sources, rather than scholarly sources and the published primary sources. For example, Frohock 2012, pp. 28–32, explains the importance of The Present State of Jamaica (1683). It was the first published account in England of Morgan's expedition, and contains his commission, a letter to him from Governor Modyford, and various depositions, including from Morgan's secretary. But that source is nowhere mentioned in the article.
The Present State of Jamaica, which presents Morgan as part of a process of enlightened imperialism, was contradicted by another key primary source, Alexandre Exquemelin's The Buccaneers of America (1678 in Dutch; 1684 in English), which is cited in the article, but only three times. The Bounder wrote that he regards Exquemelin as unreliable because he lost a libel case, but Frohock, a subject-matter expert, describes Exquemelin "as an independent eyewitness writing critical history", even if some parts are unreliable, and writes that Exquemelin "can prevent a history of violence from being subsumed into larger fictions about civilizing the New World wilderness", an issue this article doesn't mention. Frohock also isn't used as a source. The article needs to mine these sources and say more about the differing accounts.
Anyway, I'm sorry that this input has been so unwelcome. I understand that the FAC process is fraught, but I think the article would be hugely improved with better sourcing. SarahSV (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the FA process is not "fraught", and I have dealt with the comments of eight other reviewers the constructive good faith they have shown me. All I have to say about the Frohock source is that he states that "Morgan [was] arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London": he was never imprisoned in the Tower, as our article makes clear.
Ian, any interest I have in the subject has waned to the point that I no longer wish to take this forward; thanks for holding off for a while, but I think this can now be closed. - The Bounder (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Henry_Morgan/archive1&oldid=1079645663"