Talk:HMS Investigator (1801)

Rating

Rory, I've noticed that you've been adding this article a number of times to the assessment section of WP:SHIPS. Could you give the criteria a read there before you add this again and have a go at matching the article to the B class qualifiers before doing this again? You've added two cites recently, which is an improvement, but B class requires all major points to be cited, not just the two quotes. You could also try using Template:Cite web to improve the utility of the cites. As it stands the article also fails the second criteria of B class, there are virtually no details of Flinders' voyage, where the Investigator went and why, etc. What was she doing in the three years she was HMS Xenophon, or in the five years after her return to Britain? What are the details of the return voyage? What was her condition and why was she in such poor shape? Benea (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment on my talkpage - I expect paper sources will be more informative anyway. I'd recommend Winfield's 'British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817', and for the details on the Australian part of her career, Flinders' papers, which are at the State Library of New South Wales (though you may be able to find digitised versions), or any of a number of books published on the history of the early exploration of South East Asia and Australasia. But until you can find these sorts of details, and provide sufficient cites for all major points, the article will not satisfy criteria 1 and 2, and will not be able to be promoted to B class. Benea (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

second Xenophon - same ship?

Considering the condition of the Investigator as reported by Flinders and Kent, it seems unlikely the ship would have continued to exist after it was sold for breaking up in 1810. Also considering the different measurements given in 1861, notably the much greater depth of hold, it seems likely that a second ship named Xenophon has been confused with the Investigator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:102:B920:CAA:3B32:DCC8:75D0 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have seen numerous cases where one record says that a vessel was sold for breaking up, only to find that a subsequent owner got some years of service from her, sometimes with repairs, sometimes without. Measurements too are unreliable. There are many cases of reports of burthen varying between sources: the calculations were cumbersome and so mistakes in calculation were common, as were approximations, the basis changed around the 1840s, owners lied for legal reasons, and even the underlying length and breadth measurements changed. The depth of hold is curious, but as a hulk she may have had a tween-deck removed. Lastly, Xenophon is an extraordinarily rare name. I have worked on probably 1000 ship articles, and looked at many more vessels from this period, and this is the only one I have ever run across.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

How is Investigator "Sloop Rigged"?

Sloop suggests fore and aft rigged, yet the drawing is of a square rigged ship. Tuntable (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)