This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
What does "all areas" refer to? Or was your question rhetorical. The article is not great, but its not bad, its much better than the same entry in Marriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature. Stbalbach 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I thought the purpose of a discussion page is to dicuss the book's impact on readers. I read the book while living in San Diego in the 70's, after one year at sea as an enlisted U.S. Navy sailor. I learned more about the life at sea, the Pacific Ocean, and California history than I could have imagined was ever committed to paper. Dana's description of putting to sea for the first time, with men barefoot scurrying about the deck and climbing the rigging in response to shouted, seemingly incomprehensable orders to be more authentic than my own recollection of the first time I put to sea. I found the basic outline to be quite concise. Dana is so much easier to understand than the unabridged version of Moby Dick; several chapters of which are preposterously technical. Dana tells the reader how bad Whalers looked and smelled in just a few paragraphs. As the all-time best non-fiction sea story, Sebastian Junger's Perfect Storm is aguably the only modern-day challenger. The only way anyone could expand the outline "in all areas", would be to include the entire text. W8IMP 07:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, although IMHO personal impressions such as yours are OK too, since they often have insights into ways to tweak the article. Stan 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto on the purpose of this talk page, and ditton on the personal impressions too. Basically, situation normal here. I found the article to be concise and informative (and I've read the book). If you want to fix something specific, propose it here or fire up the keyboard and do it. --- 22.214.171.124 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Oops, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. --- Markspace 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)