The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Endeavour/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

The article passed GA last year, and got a fairly clean bill of health at a WP:SHIPS peer review in June. After endless tinkering about with it, I think it might meet the A-class criteria but am too close to it to spot any obvious gaps or copyediting issues. All comments and criticisms welcome. Euryalus (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • No problems reported with disambig links. One external link reported as suspicious, please check and advise. Alt text, so far as I can tell, looks to be in place and properly used.
  • In the section "Purchase and refit by the admiralty", the fifth paragrpah starts off by stating "The new cabins provided around two square metres of floorspace apiece...". How do we define two square meters in terms of feet and inches?
  • Why is there a commons link in the replica section? I was under the impression that we were to place all those links for commons and such at the bottom of the page. Has something changed, or is this just a unique case of needs for the article?
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Replies
      • Suspicious link - I've replaced the use of this link with references from other sources, as all its contents also appeared elsehwre. Hope this addresses the issue - let me know if I missed one.
      • Conversion to sq. ft - Conversion template added, comes to 22 square feet. Given this is an approximation of cabin space I didn't go to inches, but can do if you think it adds to the understanding of the sentence.
      • Commonscat - My mistake, removed.
    • Overall, thanks for taking the time to comment and I hope the above addresses the points you raised. Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am happy now. My above complaints have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it correct to say that the National Library is the publisher of Cook's diary. It seems they have only scanned it and put it on the web. If I get an old PD book and scan it and put it on WP, that doesn't make WP the publisher does it? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Hard to say. The National Library (NLA) holds the original of Cook's Journal and publishes it on its website, so maybe Cook himself is the publisher as he produced the copy they're transcribing. However Cook didn't publicly publish it in any meaningful way, and as far as I know it was first properly published in its entirety by Elliot Stock in 1893.
  • So - is the NLA the publisher as they published the website used to reference the article? Or is Cook the publisher as well as the author, as he produced the copy the NLA scanned? Or should I avoid this conundrum altogether by getting a book version of the Journal and citing that instead?Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - As the issue remains unresolved, I've avoided it by replacing the National Library web cites from Cook's Journal with references directly to a published edition by J.C. Beaglehole, who is probably the pre-eminent Cook historian as his slightly hagiographic Wikipedia article makes clear. Beaglehole published Cook's Journal in its entirely (which is more than the National Library did), and has a definitive publisher in Cambridge University Press. The problem still exists on a smaller scale with the passing references to journals by Hawkesworth and Banks, which are also on the National Library website, but I'll replace these with something more definitive over the weekend. Euryalus (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further update - all NLA refs now replaced with ones with a definitive publisher (either Parkin (Miegunyah Press) or Beaglehole (Cambridge University Press)). I hope this addresses the issue - luckily Endeavour is well-documented enough that claims can usually be referenced from more than one reliable source. Euryalus (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is an excellent article, and I think that it would also pass a FAC without any difficulties. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks great and an interesting read. – Joe N 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Everything looks good, images all check out. Good luck at FAC! Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.