Wikipedia:Peer review/James Cook/archive2

James Cook

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It has improved considerably since it was last reviewed (in 2006) and I would like to know how best to move it towards the Good Article criteria, particularly in the area of completeness.

Thanks, Harkey (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good coverage in my opinion. There are still several spots where referencing is missing, for example a couple of paragraphs in the "Start of Royal Navy career" (and a few more throughout the article). There are some prose issues, like double punctuation and where you've used quotes. I personally am not good at perfecting that sort of thing myself; if you're like me you might need the Guild. I'd also play around with the structure a bit, merging early and family life, separating the career into a level 2 heading with subheadings, and splitting the legacy section somehow (perhaps contributions to maritime services and then other stuff named after him) and the third voyage and death into two (Third voyage, death - although I do realise the latter was during the former). I wonder what others think about these changes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A much improved article! I was surprised though not to find anything on the political controversy that later surrounded Cook, particularly in the late 20th century, 1990s in particular, and the arguments over his post-colonial heritage. Also, you cite the Obeyesekere-Sahlins argument over the interpretation of Cook's arrival in the region, but draw on Obeyesekere's intermediary volume - it would be worth citing Sahlin's 1994 reply as well ("How Natives Think" I think it was). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, very much.--Harkey (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made the changes, as advised. Thank you.--Harkey (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think my proposed changes have done as I hoped they might. I think the article stands a realistic chance at GAN now; probably with some small things but it's not far off. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency review of sources

Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Be consistent in whether you put years of publications inside brackets in the shortened footnotes
Be consistent in whether you say "page" or "p."
Be consistent in whether you invert (last, first) authornames
Be consistent in whether you use templates for the citations

Eisfbnore • talk 14:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll look at these matters.--Harkey (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Harkey (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This is a great article, and a fantastic topic for an FA. I don't know enough about the subject to consider whether the article is comprehensive, but what comments I have from reading through, I'll post below. On another note, it's unfortunate that this PR has been fairly quiet so far, but you might like to bring it to MilHist's A-class review, where you might get more feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "RN" postnom not a little redundant given that the sentence ends with "rising to the rank of Captain in the Royal Navy"?
Is the blockquote for "farther than any man has been before me, but as far as I think it is possible for a man to go" really necessary?
(22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)) First paragraph under Third voyage (1776–79) needs a ref (you'll normally need at least one reference per paragrpah to get an article through any formal review process)
Ditto the penultimate paragraph of the "Death" section.
Similar issues with the last and penultimate paragraphs

Done.--Harkey (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Good copyediting, very constructive. The blockquote "farther than......" is THE quote: it is in all the biographies of Cook that I have read (and I have read a few, just lately in the interests of Wikipedia!!). I think it reveals his ambitious nature in a biography where there are few sources for his personality and motivation.--Harkey (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've been through it all now, and aside from a few referencing issues, it looks like an excellent article. It's easily GA standard, but it might be quicker to bypass GAN and go to MilHist A-class then possibly FAC—he's certainly a great topic for an FA, and it would be great to see him on the Main Page at some point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'll address the issues you have mentioned then proceed as you have advised.--Harkey (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Harkey (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the article from MilHist A-class. I investigated the article's sources much more thoroughly last night and realised that some of the books cited were less than scholarly. Also, the whole topic of James Cook, his voyages and legacy, on Wikipedia needs more consideration.--Harkey (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]