Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Voyage Round the World/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [1].

A Voyage Round the World[edit]

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article (my first FAC in 15 years, so apologies if I don't know everything about the current process) is about a report by Georg Forster (my other FA) about the Second voyage of James Cook. It has a famously controversial genesis (it appeared in competition with Cook's official account), and is an important book in the history of travel writing and source for 18th century Polynesian ethnology. While I have written almost all of the article, I would like to acknowledge the very helpful GA review by Chiswick Chap last year and the recent thorough GOCE copyedit by Twofingered Typist here. The article contains a rather lengthy paraphrase of the content / the voyage, illustrated by contemporary paintings and by the author's own watercolour. Of course all of these long quotes are only acceptable because they are PD-old, but I do hope they help to give a good overview of the book. —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • A couple images lack captions
  • Lead caption is missing italics
  • Suggest scaling up all charts/maps
  • Rather than "see caption", suggest "refer to caption" for alts
  • File:Forsterundsohn.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Ditto File:Gallirallus_hypoleucus.jpg
  • File:Cook'sSecondVoyage53.png: what is the source for the data presented?
  • File:Georg_Forster_-_Halcyon_leucocephala_acteon.jpeg needs a US tag and a more specific source
  • File:Table_Mountain_and_Cape_Town_(William_Fehr_Collection_CD21).jpg is incorrectly tagged and attributed - under US law, reproducing a 2D work does not garner a new copyright
  • File:ForsterWEB72.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Hodges_easter-island.jpg, File:Cook-1777.PNG, File:Georg_Forster's_sämmtliche_Schriften,_Erster_Band.jpg
  • File:Norfolk_Triller.jpg has a dead source link and needs a US tag, but there is also a copyright statement in the description claiming this is reproduced by permission - what are the details of that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the easy bits (i.e. in this article, not on Commons). Do you have a suggestion what is best practice for dead source links? For the Rigaud painting and the Hodges paintings (and Forster's ice blink), I have other (online and offline) references that verify that these images are old and by these painters. If I add these, is that OK even if I don't know exactly where the .jpg is from? (They're not the source of the actual jpg data, but a source for the picture). This is definitely a worthwhile exercise because, for example, the original dead source link for the Rigaud painting was a random university website where it was probably used as an illustration, so thank you for pointing this out. The Forster pictures are less well published, I'll have to see whether I can prove more clearly they are indeed Forster's. There are data sources for the voyage map given at c:File:Cook Three Voyages 59.png; I'll check with the uploader who is still active.
The additional US tag for PD-old items was news to me (seems to have been introduced a few years ago), but I'll make sure the images get tagged correctly and will report back. Thanks a lot for looking at these! —Kusma (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fell into a little rabbit hole of learning about the history of File:Forsterundsohn.jpg. Uploader has added source for File:Cook'sSecondVoyage53.png. Hope these two are acceptable now. Will do the others slowly and carefully tomorrow-ish. —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will look in more detail once you've done that, but a quick response now: if the dead source links are appropriate sources, then an archived version (eg from archive.org) would be a good replacement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are unfortunately no archived versions that I could find, so I have removed the Forster watercolours of birds as not properly sourced and replaced them by File:Gallirallus_pacificus.jpg, the lead image from the FA Tahiti rail. I've also replaced the Cape Town image by a File:A View of the Cape of Good Hope, Taken on the Spot, from on Board the Resolution Hodges 1772.jpg, as there are claims that the previously used image was actually painted ten years later on a different journey (not a debate I want to cover here).
  • For everything that was missing a US tag, I have added one, together with the best information on the images and their publication history that I've been able to find (from the authoritative art book and catalogue Joppien, Rüdiger; Smith, Bernard (1985). The art of Captain Cook's voyages. 2. Melbourne: Oxford University Press in association with the Australian Academy of the Humanities. ISBN 978-0-19-554456-5).
  • File:Forsterundsohn.jpg has a higher-resolution but less bright version at the Australian National Portrait Gallery; I'd rather keep the current version if possible. It can be found here (which I've mentioned), but I think it is likely they copied it from Commons.
  • Should there be further copyright issues (unexpected PD-US/date of publication questions) with any of the images here, there are many alternative images that could be used to illustrate the content section. For example, ethnographic and other engravings from Cook's 1777 book or Forster's plant images from the 1775/76 Characteres generum plantarum. —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There are some issues around publication for paintings - as per the definition of publication in US law, simply being displayed does not constitute publication. So for example for File:Forsterundsohn.jpg, the information provided only confirms a publication date of 1976, not pre-1926. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I had based my reading on c:Commons:Publication that I have perhaps not read closely enough; I've adapted one of the tags at File:A View of the Cape of Good Hope, Taken on the Spot, from on Board the Resolution Hodges 1772.jpg. For File:Forsterundsohn.jpg, well, the question is whether the publication of faithful engravings (the 18th century version of publishing pictures) counts as publishing this picture. Alternatively, it could be PD-1996? BTW Alamy claim to have a higher quality version and seem to believe it is PD, but I guess this doesn't tell us anything usable. The best other information I have on the painting and its derivatives is in this self-published book; I'm not sure the author is right about everything, but it is a good place to find further information (and reliable sources like the scholarly edition of Therese Huber's letters do refer to it). —Kusma (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When and where were engravings published, according to the sources you've consulted? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were available for sale in Germany in 1860: [2] (mail order catalogue), which should count as publication under the US law you linked to above. The first books containing reproductions that I am aware of are in Germany in 1953 [3] and in the UK in 1961 [4]. —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have added one more image, File:Houghton Oc 127.72.3 - Cook, Otoo.jpg (unquestionably PD everywhere, published in Cook's 1777 book) and moved some other images around for slightly improved image balance on wide screens. Please let me know what you think of the license tags now (and whether I have broken anything else). —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still pending: publication history for File:Gallirallus_pacificus.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented it out for the moment and asked the uploader for further information. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say when it was first published, but it was at least published by 1989 in the French book Le Grand Livre des Espéces Disparues by J. Balouet, according to the 2000 edition of the book Extinct Birds by Errol Fuller, which is where I scanned it from. It is very possible it was published before, but 1989 at least makes it public domain according to EU rules.[5][6] So with this info, I think it could use the same licensing as this:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, with @FunkMonk's explanations of the publication history, do you think this can be used or should it rather be left out? —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tahiti rail is back in. —Kusma (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria I've made some changes to image captions (some trivial, mostly links, but one more substantial expansion). Please let me know if you think I've messed up. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any caption issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Tim riley[edit]

Just putting my marker down. A cracker of an article at first glance, but I'll be back with substantive comments over the weekend, I hope. Looking forward to it. – Tim riley talk 21:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this a riveting article, particularly the main Content section, which is as good a thing of that kind as I have seen in Wikipedia. I have a few minor prose points – very few and very minor – that I hope you will find helpful.

  • Background
  • the urgings of geographer Alexander Dalrymple – I do not think the use of false titles, à l'américaine (or à la Daily Mirror), is becoming in a piece of formal British English. A definite article before "geographer" would do what's necessary. Later we have naval surgeon and inventor Charles Irving, First Secretary of the Admiralty Philip Stephens, Royal Society vice president Daines Barrington, First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Sandwich, writer and editor John Hawkesworth, Oxford astronomer Thomas Hornsby, Canadian anthropologist John Barker and others, including the massed ranks of those suffering from false titles in the Modern Reception section.
  • Adding definite articles. Let me know whether there are too many the's now. Many of the fake titles are intended to be glosses.
  • Looks fine to me now. The prose flows smoothly and the definite articles do not obtrude – quite the opposite. Tim riley talk 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the aim to circumnavigate the globe – strange phrasing: one might expect "with the aim of circumnavigating…"
  • Germanism. Fixed.
  • Banks' scientific entourage – surprising form of possessive, here and later, where Banks's would be usual (and would reflect how it is pronounced). Likewise Wales' later on. Ess-apostrophe-ess is the form used in Modern English Usage and Plain Words, my two stand-bys for such matters.
  • Fixed.
  • mentioning Georg was a "very able draughtsman and designer" – is there a "that" missing after "mentioning"? Looks a little odd without it. Or perhaps "was" should be "as"?
  • "As" was intended. Fixed.
  • Writing and publication
  • Observationes historiam naturalem spectantes quas in navigationes ad terras australes institutere coepit G. F. – the Manual of Style would have us provide an in-line translation of foreign titles or phrases, though I have got away with putting such things in an explanatory footnote. Same goes for Voyage aux régions equinoxiales du Nouveau Continent, later.
  • Footnote and short title of English translation added.
  • artifacts – surprising, and not especially welcome, to see a spelling of "artefacts" more usually confined to AmE, and best left there, in my view.
  • Fixed.
  • Content
  • I have no quibbles at all about this whole section, which is ideally set out and judiciously proportioned. There is, I should say, just about the right amount of direct quotation from the book (and what a good writer Forster was, whatever Dr Johnson thought! Anyone who influenced Coleridge, even at second hand, is all right with me.)
  • Glad you enjoyed it! I added this during the GA review on my reviewer's suggestion, near doubling the length of the article. I have expanded the rest a bit since to make the content section less dominant.
  • Post-publication controversy
  • questioned his belief that sea water could not freeze – would it be out of order to suggest that for the benefit of scientific ignoramuses (e.g. me) it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying whether Barrington's belief was right or wrong?

Those really are all the quibbles I can scrape together. A really fine article, which I look forward to supporting for FA. – Tim riley talk 14:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tim riley, thank you for the review and the suggestions! I think I've addressed everything. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support the promotion of this excellent article to FA. It appears balanced and comprehensive without being excessively detailed. The sources are many and look authoritative (I think there may be a matter of indentation to be be dealt with for Williams 2013 in the list of Sources) and there is a good balance of old and new sources. The illustrations are well chosen and plentiful. The prose is clear and satisfying, and the whole thing is a pleasure to read. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim riley talk 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the formatting. Thank you for your help and support. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "East coast of Australia" probably should lower-case "East".
  • Done.
  • First Lord of the Admiralty, First Secretary of the Admiralty could use links. Also Admiralty.
  • Could have sworn I had included those links, but you're right, they were not there. Moved Admiralty link to first mention.
  • "In the South Pacific, they discovered New Caledonia, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands." The last two are not in the Pacific.
  • removed "In the South Pacific".
  • "his philosophical remarks." Isn't this better termed "scientific remarks"?
  • In modern terms, yes. In 1770s terms, no, scientists were "philosophers" back then. Could put it in quotes, but I'd rather leave as is.Is also a direct quote from the text of the agreement, so "philosophical remarks" in quotes it is.
  • "Southern hemisphere" Should be capped.
  • Done.
  • "Function with the Adventure." Should Adventure have italics?
  • I'm using the original styling for the chapter headings (as do all other editions), so no. And it's "Junction", embarrassingly.
  • It's possible the claim of major influence over Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a bit overstated, given that it is based (the Albatross, especially) on a published incident in George Shelvocke's journals. Is this something that is generally accepted?
  • Bernard Smith makes a fairly convincing argument that Coleridge was strongly influenced by William Wales and Cook's journey (he cites from Cook, Forster, and from Wales's journal and compares them with the Rime), and I haven't found anything that cites his work and claims it is wrong. Thomas & Berghof state "[E]vidence that Coleridge read and used Forster’s account for key passages remains inconclusive. Yet we should not discount the effects a narrative such as Forster’s might have had on Coleridge simply because we cannot find an exact match. By definition the poetic imagination transforms its sources, often beyond recognition. Bernard Smith has ably demonstrated that George Forster’s Voyage was part of a set of narratives that furnished crucial details for Coleridge’s poem." In any case, I've toned down the claim and attributed it better.
  • I'm getting citation errors from the English edition section.
  • Used |ref=none to fix it.
Very interesting article, looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful comments, let me know what you think of my fixes/responses. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the helpful comments! —Kusma (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Avoid 1-2 sentence paras - surely the 4th tiny para can append one of the others....?
  • While I like making paragraph breaks, I see your point. Better?
  • When they returned to England after more than three years... - it'd sound (slightly) more natural to me as, "When they returned to England over three years later..."
  • It's not "three years later" compared to the sailing to 71° 10', so that could be misunderstood and I've not changed anything here.
  • Another aim, following the urgings of the geographer Alexander Dalrymple, had been to find Terra Australis Incognita. - this comes over as a bit clunky too but an alternative not immediately springing to mind...
  • I have simply removed the urgings of Alexander Dalrymple, as I think his involvement in the story of Cook's first voyage is more complicated than that and also doesn't quite belong here. (Dalrymple would have loved to lead such an expedition himself). I've read a little more, and it seems that Dalrymple was not just a great believer in Terra Australis, but also the person who suggested to not let the opportunity go to waste that presented itself by having a ship already at Tahiti. I've reformulated it, tell me whether I've made it worse.
  • I'd mention that Benjamin White was a publisher
  • Added.
  • The voyage first passes the Canary Islands - I'd argue that the "first" here is redundant.
  • Removed.

Other than that looks pretty good on comprehensiveness and prose. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I've worked on all your points except one where I'd rather keep things as they are. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • This already has the "necessary" supports, but as you say, it is your first FAC in 15 years, and it overlaps with some articles I've written, so I thought it would be good to give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there's a good deal of WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[8]
    Thanks. I've removed most, the remaining duplinks are deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Cook should also be linked at first mention outside the intro?
    Done.
  • "hoped to find Terra Australis Incognita" Explain that this was a hypothetical continent?
    Done.
  • Link Cape of Good Hope.
    Done.
  • "The Royal Society suggested" Add "of London", to make clear form the beginning where we are?
    I'm not totally convinced that this is necessary, and not convinced that would be effective. But I've put it in so we can try it on for size.
I don't think it hurts, since it is already part of the official name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they became the first Europeans to cross the Antarctic Circle" Not people, period?
    My source has "first time in history", and another "first men ..." It is now "they made the first recorded crossing of the Antarctic Circle".
  • " having lost only four members of his crew on board the Resolution" Why "only"?
    Good point. My cited source doesn't say "only" at this point, so I'll find something better (not today). Cook himself proudly stated "I lost but four men and only one of them by sickness". Generally, the comparison to keep in mind here is George Anson's voyage around the world, 1740-1744 (188 out of 1854 people survived) that made the Admiralty pay attention to scurvy.
    I've removed the "only four" at this mention, and made a footnote at JRF's erroneous "no man lost by sickness" claim instead. The story of Cook and scurvy doesn't really belong here, but see Glyn Williams (2013) Scurvy on the Pacific voyages in the age of Cook if you are interested.
  • Not sure if it's deliberate, but you present some people with occupation at first mention, but others not.
    Supposed to be glosses for people who need glosses. Are there any missing or superfluous?
The main characters like Cook and Forster senior. Also, some people seem to get nationalities listed, but most don't. Omai could also get some kind of brief context? FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text makes it clear enough that Cook was a navigator and JRF a scientist. Nationalities are not relevant for the 18th century people (it's more important that Sparrman was a student of Linnaeus than that he was Swedish). I have them in the reviews section to show where these reviews come from (mostly, but not exclusively Australia and New Zealand, but this is generally where interest in Cook's voyages seems greatest at the moment). I could remove the nationalities entirely if that makes the article read better. (Some are not there because New Zealanders living in London for most of their life shouldn't be given a one-word mention of that).
Omai: excellent point. Added.
  • "Forster believed he would be allowed to publish a narrative of the journey" Which Forster? This is kind of an issue throughout.
    I was hoping this would be clear from context. "Forster" is sometimes Reinhold in the early sections, where he is the leading actor.
I was confused by this particular instance because when I looked at the infobox, it said Georg was the one who wrote the account, So I was unsure whether he or the father had been the ones who asked to be allowed to writre it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That instance was unclear, with "Forster" meaning JRF directly following a "Georg". I've tried to improve this.
  • There is some inconsistency in how you write out the names of the Forsters after first mention. Sometimes full names like Johann Reinhold Forster, sometimes only last names, sometimes elder Forster, and sometimes Reinhold Forster. I wonder if it would be less confusing to just stick to one style, for example "G. Forster" and "J. R. Forster" after first full mention? Would save space too.
    I think that would be bad for the Content section, and sticking to one style would read worse overall (variety is spice...). I've asked my copyeditor about this issue, who seemed to think it is working out well currently. But I can try to sort JR Forster a bit better (another problem is that GF's first name is, in a sense, also Johann).
Not a huge deal, but I did get confused in places when only "Forster" was used prior to the Content section. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Kahn and Thomas&Berghof use "Forster" in both meanings, relying on context. T&B switch between various ways to write JRF, inclduing "Forster senior", "Johann Reinhold". I hope it works now.
  • "The marine Isaac Taylor, who has been afflicted with consumption" Had been?
    Oops, thanks.
  • Link more personal and place names in image captions?
    Linked the artists, even repeatedly, and the people in the paintings. Not a huge fan of linking parts of the image names to locations. I've found out who Otoo, King of O-taheite is (Pōmare I); this is now in the image caption because it might distract from the main text (I don't think I can link to his article without some sort of explanation).
Don't think it's needed at every mention of the same name, just first occurrence in a caption. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, removed a couple of William Hodges links again. —Kusma (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when they appeared in an illustrated German edition of Voyage" Could the year be given in-text?
    Couldn't think of a good way to do that and keep the "over 200 years" so the readers now have to figure out for themselves that a long time passed between 1777 and 2007.
  • Link travelogue?
    travelogue is a DAB and travel literature a bit all over the place, but as it was already in the infobox, I've linked it.
  • " Peoples described include the Tahitians, the Maori of New Zealand, and the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego" Links to these peoples?
    Good idea. The Fuegians link is me not figuring out which peoples these really are, but it seems like the correct terminology for the time.
  • "This wasn't completely correct" Contractions should be avoided.
    I've clarified and removed the unnecessary contraction.

I think I've responded to everything (following your suggestions often, but not always). Thank you FunkMonk for your careful reading and comments! —Kusma (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, I'll continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should names of ships be in italics in section titles?
    I'm trying to follow the original edition as closely as possible, including the dashes. None of the later editions italicise Adventure here either.
  • Is there any description of how they communicated with the natives?
    Words and signs. Some sign language is mentioned in the Content section, as well as the observation that there are several languages of Vanuatu, although I haven't found a good place to link that article. The Forsters collected not just plants, but also words. A comparative chart of Pacific languages is in JRF's book Observations made..., about which I haven't managed to get around to writing an article yet.
  • "proving the existence of cannibalism in New Zealand" Anything to link?
    Cannibalism to Human cannibalism seems best.
  • Link albino?
    Linked to Albinism in humans.
  • "R. L. Kahn, the editor of the 1968 edition of Voyage" By this time you have already mentioned him with full name but no link or presentation earlier.
    Moved.
  • Why is the Danish edition only mentioned in a footnote about the German edition, and not listed in-text along the other language editions?
    The information came from two different sources (Kahn's list of translations omits the Danish one), which isn't a good excuse. Merged.
  • "almost half of the literature about Voyage has focused exclusively on this part of the journey" Do we know why?
    The three-letter answer is probably just "sex". For a longer answer: my source annotates this fact as "irritating, but understandable". In my own opinion (I haven't found a source directly stating this), Voyage became part of a heavily romanticised narrative of Tahiti as an ocean paradise (pre-Fall of Man) that had been started by Bougainville calling the island "Nouvelle Cythere", essentially Aphrodite's island. Narratives of Pacific islanders were often read as erotica. I have sources stating things like "The poet and essayist Heinrich Wilhelm von Gerstenberg fantasised about establishing an Arcadian colony of German writers on Tahiti, under the guidance of Forster", but that was in 1777 (and seems to not have been discussed for very long) so doesn't quite explain why modern scholars like it so much. I think the Mutiny on the Bounty and its massive literary reception is partially responsible.
    Generally I'd like to avoid saying much more about the scholarly literature and discourse here, given that the analysis in Peitsch's book runs to about eight pages without giving all that many details about each of the articles he writes about, and that's just the state of the art 20 years ago.
  • The first and last paragraphs of the article body are pretty long walls of text, wonder if both could be broken in two to help the reader parse the text?
    Split the first one. For the last one, I don't see a natural breaking point.
  • "In his review of it, the Canadian anthropologist John Barker" Do we need to know his nationality?
  • "The Australian historian Kay Saunders" Likewise, and there are a good deal of similar cases under Modern reception where the nationality doesn't seem to add anything, which would be ok if it wasn't for more notable characters not being presented this way earlier in the article.
    Removed all in this section. Better than having to discuss whether the Forsters were German, Polish, or Prussian or to explain that Kahn was German-American (escaped the Holocaust via Kindertransport). I think that Engel (only in a footnote) being Swiss adds to the absurdity of his armchair navigator's views on the Open Polar Sea.
Wasn't a huge deal, but after the fifth Australian reviewer, it started to become a bit pointless... FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about the publication of a narrative of the journey arose" Double "of the" is a bit repetitive, any way to vary it?
    How about "publications rights for a narrative of the journey"?
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: See above for replies and changes made (or not made). I can try to dig out more on the Tahiti fascination but I'm not sure I can tie it directly to Voyage, so I am unconvinced it should be stated here. —Kusma (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd need to go into much more detail, but the way it is written now made me, and probably many other readers, wondering, as it's a bit of a tease. Maybe something brief like "much of this literature focuses on erotic aspects" or "it tied into a fascination with Tahiti at the time" or similar could solve it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk, ok, I think I understand what you mean there now. I've said a little more which I hope gives a better idea without just looking like a tease, while staying on the right side of WP:OR. I should also probably write an article about Bougainville's book :) —Kusma (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - issues nicely addressed, but they were minor in any case. Fine article! FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Dropping back in to FAC on the advice of Tim riley to have a look at this one. Very nicely written and put together. I made a series of very small MoS changes earlier, which I hope you don't mind. I'm impressed with the quality of what I read and the assurance in the way it's been put together. Very nice indeed. I'm not sure if comments or !votes from IPs are counted, but this is a Support from me. (If any of the FA Co-ords want to confirm who I claim to be, they are welcome to contact me directly.) Cheers - the editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61D9:58A7:69EC:6CCB (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this IP is indeed the artist formerly (not "formally", fumblefingers!) known as SchroCat. He and I and other current and past Wikipedians meet frequently at the Wehwalt Arms in London, and this, above, is undeniably from him. Whether or not an IP contribution counts for FAC purposes, for my part I take this one seriously, and concur with it. – Tim riley talk 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedits and the support, glad you enjoyed it enough to come back here! —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the doyen of our séances at the Wehwalt Arms, Brian Boulton, is no longer alive; I smile sadly to think how immensely he would have enjoyed reviewing this article, even though it lacks the shipwrecks, drownings or other fatalities en regle in a BB seafaring FA. – Tim riley talk 16:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A moment's pause for reflection is in order. But cheering to hear that the editor formerly known as SchroCat has mastered ouija. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check and source review[edit]

Formatting of sources is mostly consistent but I see that sometimes publisher information is missing. I see some "|volume= has extra text" errors. The Guardian isn't an academic publication, so it probably shouldn't be formatted like one. That source and some PhD theses might not be good sources for a FA, I think - everything else seems fine.

Added a publisher or two, and ISBN/doi information for one publication that was very poorly presented. The Guardian formatting problem I can't quite see (uses {{cite news}}) but I agree that citing the Guardian here isn't up to the standard of the rest of the sources. I can try to use more from Edwards 2004 or the paper I link to in response to 51 here instead and perhaps shorten this story (which really belongs in an article about Hawkesworth's book that needs to be written). Will do so once other issues are resolved in order to not mess up the numbering. Anything else? —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the Guardian. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 106: OK.
  • 37: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, the source seems to say that Cook had authorial intentions himself and that this was more important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gordon has this from Beaglehole's biography of Cook, who doesn't say that in a way that would allow us to state it as fact. Perhaps it's best to cite this to Edwards, p. 112, which says after mentioning Hawkesworth "[Cook] decided he would be responsible for publishing his own account." —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed, using Edwards and other sources. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40: OK.
  • 80: OK but I don't think we need a reference here if you are describing what the book itself says.
  • 33: Can I have a copy of this page.
    I don't think I received this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, got this one. It seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 126: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, it needs to be reworded so that it reads less like a word-by-word translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It did combine Hahn/Fischer with a "in Germany" from Steiner so it wasn't a direct copy, but I have tried to rephrase it a bit. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 154: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, it does not mention Akademie-Verlag? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "that which constitutes Band 1 of Georg Forsters Werke (Berlin, 1968)" which uniquely identifies the Akademie edition. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 57: OK.
  • 8: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 53: OK.
  • 125: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 87: OK but I don't think we need a reference here if you are describing what the book itself says.
    I have page number references for all direct quotes, no references for the content description (other than the chapter headings). —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99: OK.
  • 107: OK.
  • 130: Can I have a copy of this page.
    I don't think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you do, sorry, technical difficulties. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, that checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51: Which page was this on?
    It's kind of the whole text, especially 72-73 (access to Cook's text) and 78-80 (Cook's text as source) so I haven't given the precise page. I could also cite this (available on TWL at [9]), which gets the point across as well and is in English. See pp. 253-255. What do you think? —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added page numbers (also to one other publication). —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 101: OK.
  • 79: OK.
  • 70: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to scan/photograph the hardcopy books, sent some electronic files by email already. The Dawson thesis is explicitly named as a source (or even praised) in several clearly reliable sources (and this is mentioned in the article), so I think it should definitely be used. Generally, PhD theses in this field often are the main publications that actually go and study the sources: both Dawson's and Gordon's thesis include archive material that was not previously published, so their theses are widely cited by other literature. (I think the objection against PhD theses isn't equally valid in all fields). I would like to cite from Gordon because this thesis is an additional study independent of Hoare (these two are almost the only ones who really studied JRF's life in England in any sort of detail and using the widest range of sources). —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sent the scans. Jo-Jo Eumerus, let me know if there is anything wrong with them and I'll try to scan better versions / smaller files. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the Gordon cites in detail. 21 (to Gordon p. 153) is perhaps not so great, it's Gordon taking JRF's journal at face value, though Sandwich's letter to Lord North kind of makes it very plausible. 26 is mostly redundant with 25, and could be removed or (perhaps better) both moved to the end of the sentence, if 26 is changed to citing pp. 155-157. Per what I said above, 37 could be replaced by citing Edwards 2004. (My poor excuse for not using Edwards 2004 more is that I didn't have proper access to it until buying a second hand copy last week, incidentally with a sticker identifying it as from the library of Nicholas Thomas). So I could go without citing that PhD thesis, but Dawson's should stay. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the PhD thesis is frequently cited in its own right then it can stand. Seems like most other issues are resolved as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the old 21 from Gordon and the text it supported. The old 37 was also replaced by other sources. 26 is still there per above (stating unambiguous facts), but could be removed without much harm. Gordon's thesis is also relatively widely cited in its own right, but not with as much praise attached to it as Dawson's. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: please check my recent edits and let me know whether you think anything else is needed. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did check but the only thing that comes to mind is the source seems to say that Cook had authorial intentions himself and that this was more important. which seems to still be an issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had adressed that in my response to 37 above so I don't believe it is still an issue: I have removed that citation based on the objection to PhD theses and changed it (it is now 38) to refer to Edwards 2004, p. 112, which I quote above, as the "Cook had authorial intentions" is Gordon's interpretation of a section in Beaglehole's biography of Cook, "Beaglehole tells us that Cook, if not intentionally, then subconsciously kept his journal with the ambition of publishing it" that just isn't very definite. This interpretation of Cook's subconscious relates to the time before March 1775 when Cook saw Hawkesworth's book (and was shortly after confronted with ridicule at St Helena, where the inhabitants showed him that they did indeed have wheelbarrows, unlike what Hawkesworth wrote, see here: (not a citable RS, but a good account nevertheless)), and the authorship intent seems to become clearer afterwards. The issue is hinted at a bit later: "Both Cook and Forster had kept journals for this purpose and reworked them in the winter of 1775–76." (The Williams book cited, for example, says that Cook's several versions of his journals were evidence that he was writing for the public, not just the Admiralty). —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the thumbs-up! I think I'm done now. —Kusma (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2021 (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/A_Voyage_Round_the_World/archive1&oldid=1046690037"