Jump to content

Talk:An Account of the Voyages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Kusma (talk). Self-nominated at 10:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Kusma, review follows: article moved to mainspace on 30 January; article is well written and cited inline throughout (with the exception of "Content", which is implicitly cited to the work itself); sources used appear reliable; I didn't find any overly close paraphrasing from sources I checked; hooks are mentioned in the article and check out to the sources cited; I find the wheelbarrow hook the most interesting; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:An Account of the Voyages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged; sources are reliable.

  • Suggest linking "southern continent" to Terra Australis.
    Done.
  • "Mediated by Sandwich, he also was given access to": suggest "Sandwich gave him access to".
    Did a slightly different copyedit.
  • "flaws were found with Hawkesworth's morals, theology, geography, and with the excessive payment he had received": can we expand on these criticisms? The article is quite short, and the criticism sounds like a significant part of the response to it, but we get almost no details.
    Yes, there could be more details. I have a few sources that go more in depth, but it could be a few days until I can do this justice.
  • You say it remained an authoritative source on the voyages for over a century. Do modern sources that refer to it have anything interesting to say about its representations and accuracies or inaccuracies, or its biases, or anything of that sort?
    As I understand it, people interested in the voyages nowadays use the various editions of the original journals instead. But you are right that I should include something about the more recent reception of Hawkesworth.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:, thank you for the review! I will try to address your excellent points as soon as I can, but it could be a week. —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with a delay; I'll check back in a week or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, I've added some more details and (I hope) answered some of your questions. I hope this is closer to "broad coverage" now, even though it certainly isn't near the FA standard of "comprehensive". —Kusma (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good -- before I pass it, looks like there's a template error at the end of the very last sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed. —Kusma (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Account_of_the_Voyages&oldid=1198649028"