Images[edit]

Swallow on a 1956 stamp
Pitcairn stamp showing HMS Swallow
Philip Carteret and HMS Swallow at Pitcairn, 1767, from a 1967 stamp

I've tried to find images of the ship. I found a stamp, and there is also this image of Dolphin and Swallow (drawn by Samuel Wallis, published no later than 1968, should be public domain even in the US). I can try to make a higher resolution scan from the edition of Carteret's journals. But which of the ships is Dolphin and which one is Swallow? —Kusma (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume all of Wallis' images here show the Dolphin. A few of them are already in c:Category:Samuel Wallis. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to tell with the resolution. If I was to guess, I'd say that the right ship is Dolphin, but it would be a very weak guess. Perhaps a higher resolution image would help; if the drawing is accurate then one would be able to identify them from their number of gun ports. One might hope that there's a caption somewhere identifying them? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the original sketch is accurate enough to count gun ports, and the caption doesn't tell me who is who. I'll try to ask the library that supposedly holds the drawing for further information. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While in the process of writing my query, I finally found the original: https://collection.sl.nsw.gov.au/record/9WZMPOzY/NZMDGGrB8xk6g There doesn't seem to be any caption for it. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some great drawings. I suppose if we know that the image of the two ships is certainly Dolphin and Swallow then it can be captioned and included as such, even if we don't know which is which. Annoying, though. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Helen Wallis, the editor of Carteret's journals, seems to have been certain. I've uploaded a crop and put it into the article. —Kusma (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be possible to crop the stamp picture so that it focuses more on the ship? Would probably be a better illustration of Swallow for the infobox image than the construction plans. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution isn't high enough. Another stamp that could be used (anything British before 1969 is ok) is this Pitcairn one: [1] We could crop out the image of Carteret and the Swallow from that one. —Kusma (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, if anything that's just a better image! I'm not sure if keeping Carteret is necessary because he's got at least one nice portrait available already, but I certainly agree that the crop would be worth doing. I would note that I'm useless at this kind of thing, and I'd be very grateful if you'd have a look at it..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a way to get just the ship out without actual work by someone who knows how to use their image manipulation program. So not me. See above for crop. —Kusma (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great as-is, thank you! I've added it in. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This shows the route Swallow took on her voyage and thus might be useful, but I'm not well versed enough with the route to say if it's totally correct. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check at some point in the future. I have to finish some IRL stuff and answer to comments on a GAN, but then I'd like to insert Carteret's opinion that this was the worst ship in the Navy. And if you won't nominate this article for DYK, I will :) —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the DYK to you, I'm pretty terrible at that too. I've got some stuff to add about a partial mutiny in 1761 which might be vaguely interesting, though. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did the DYK nom. Sorry about mixing ((sfn))'s into your ((sfnp))'s, should have paid more attention. —Kusma (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Dolphin and Swallow drawn by Samuel Wallis
Dolphin and Swallow drawn by Samuel Wallis

Created by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk). Nominated by Kusma (talk) at 22:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • This substantial and well-written article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline (I like the original hook), the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P2 without image

A few notes and source links[edit]

There is probably enough material to write a separate article about Carteret's circumnavigation, but one thing at a time. —Kusma (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intending to expand coverage of the journey using this history of circumnavigations, which seems to provide a good overview of the expedition, and the thoughts and circumstances behind it. Wallis and Carteret were clearly not on good terms for most of their time together, and the disharmony present on the voyage should certainly be noted! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. It seems to be that Carteret had more relevant experience, yet was given the far inferior ship, crew and provisions, and then achieved far more than Wallis. And then both were completely overshadowed by Cook.
If you need me to check anything in Carteret's (or Robertson's) journals, let me know, happy to search for confirmations (or juicy quotes). I'll try to write more about the story from the publishing end (An Account of the Voyages) for the moment. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have written up what Wilson has to say on the expedition prior to them reaching the Pacific. If you have anything that might improve what I've included please do add it! I hope to write up the rest of Wilson tomorrow, which will hopefully mean a much more detailed account of the expedition for you to attack! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realise I've managed to completely ignore the presence of the store ship Prince Frederick for the first part of the journey, and will add her part in tomorrow as well. Not sure whether or not this ship and HMS Prince Frederick are one and the same, however. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Have very belatedly finished off the exploration part of the article - can only apologise that it took me so long to get back to! Do you think there's anything else that needs adding or addressing in more detail? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I think you have most of the important points about the voyage (more detail like all the islands seen (some more here) should probably be in an article about the circumnavigation, not the ship). You could say something about Carteret meeting his colleague Louis Antoine de Bougainville, though, who had come to Tahiti just after Wallis did, and made some remarks about Swallow when he and Carteret met. Bougainville wrote "Son navire étoit fort petit, marchoit très-mal , & quand nous eûmes pris congé de lui nous le laissâmes comme à l’ancre. Combien il a dû souffrir dans une aussi mauvaise embarcation !" [4] or, in Johann Reinhold Forster's (more probably Georg Forster's, actually) English translation, "His ship was very small, went very ill, and when we took leave of him, he remained as it were at anchor. How much he must have suffered in so bad a vessel, may well be conceived." [5] —Kusma (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there's absolutely no need to apologise. I haven't kept my promises to write about Hawkesworth's book either (allowed myself to be distracted by a couple of other fun things). I am very happy that we have so much more about the ship and the circumnavigation now. —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Thanks, I'll add the Bougainville meeting soon - I had read about it, but for some reason the significance didn't hit me. What a great quote! Hoping to put this up for GAN after I've done that and maybe expanded on a few earlier details. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could also consider some "legacy" like the island names I mentioned above or the publication of Carteret's journal in An Account of the Voyages (there are likely more complaints by Carteret about Swallow and the Admiralty in that book). For GA, you should probably expand the content about the circumnavigation in the lead section to a full paragraph. —Kusma (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Swallow (1745)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a ship! I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
While I am not going to die on a hill to save my use of gun numbers in articles, I will at least make one attempt to argue the point. I am of the mind that including the number of guns assists the reader in understanding just what type and size a ship they are reading about is. If I simply call a ship "the frigate" then that could be anything between a 580 ton 26-gun frigate and a 1200 ton 44-gun frigate. Adding the number of guns a ship held is in my mind a simple way to pretty accurately illustrate important differences between similar types of vessel. What do you think?
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Hi, thank for another very thorough review and helpful copy edits. I believe I have responded to all your comments above. I realise that I've refuted more points than I usually would in a GAN, for which I apologise. This isn't a competition I'm trying to "win", so if you still think I'm wrong on anything please say so! Thanks again for all your hard work. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. A lot of what I bring up is suggestions. I'm not going to fail an article because we disagree on whether something this tiny is in or not. Passing now! Ealdgyth (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories