Talk:Wager Mutiny

A Tiger

Without wishing to plagiarise Monty Python "A Tiger! (In Africa?)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.33.126 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

- No a tiger in America. Obviously incorrect, but that was how the sailors described the aminal in their accounts at the time. I think they just meant 'big cat', i.e. jaguar or something. (Oberon Houston - Author)

More likely a cougar. I don't think Jaguars range that far south. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Isaac Morris describes the sighting of a 'lion' separately to the sighting of a tiger, have tigers ever existed in South America (i.e. been hunted to extinction?? Oberon Houston (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignore my last comment, looked into it, one sighting must have been a cougar and the other a jaguar, I've updated the narrative. Oberon Houston (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Court-martial and aftermath?

It appears this article is incomplete. mkehrt (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oberon: Yes it is, and apologies for the time it has taken to fix. My reference books (i.e. Byron, WC Pack, etc..) are on a shipping container back to the UK - will fix, but will be probably March-April 2010. Unless anyone else want to have a go?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oberon 22 April 2011: I've (finally) extensively revised and updated the sections on Cheaps group and some others, and will endeavour to complete the Court Martial in the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made good progress on the court martial and the aftermath, however there is still some work to do on this. The books and journals don't cover the aftermath that well, i.e. they stop fairly abruptly at the court martial, therefore I'm having to go to original Admiralty documents etc.. to get more information. So far I have Cheap and Kidd's will and found out where, when and what Baynes was when he died from Admiralty documents. There are many others however, what I'd REALLY like to find is information on King, Bulkley, Cummins and Campball - but as their RN careers ended or were warrant officer/other ranks there is little Admiralty information on them and other sources are hard to locate, any help would be good! Oberon Houston (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sensationalism

It's an encyclopaedia, not a novel or a comic. Stuff like "...and Cheap no doubt felt he was doing the right thing, although many reading this story and the things this small group endured together, may stare at the wisdom of this decision. Needless to say Campbell hit the roof..." and "It hit him like a thunderbolt. Years after abandoning Cheap at the other side of the world, an isolated uncharted nightmare into the bargain, the guy had just waded ashore at Dover, back from the dead. Never in a million years had his survival and return to England been remotely expected. But impossible as it may have seemed, Cheap was very much alive, and charging towards the Admiralty in London with his version of events. This may have seemed like a nightmare and stranger than fiction to Bulkley, but it was very real" are not appropriate use of language for Wikipedia. Use plain English. Shem (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Comic" is a bit harsh, but point taken, will try to be dry... Oberon Houston (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

French frigate Lys

I can't find a French frigate of that name existing in 1744. It could be Fleur de Lys, but I can't find one of those either. In any case, linking to the DAB page Lys is inappropriate. Shem (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course there was a French ship-of-the-line (vaisseaux de Deuxième Rang) called Lys or Lis, launched in June 1706 at Brest and broken up in 1747. The correct Wikilink would be French ship Lis (1706), according to List of ships of the line of France. Shem (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It must be the one launched in 1707. The name of the ship as I've written it matches exactly the spelling of the narratives in all the source material. i.e. "Lys", and that's how it's spelled in the Wikipedia entry you mention too- it must have been broken-up shortly after it returned to Brest with Cheap et al..., anyway I've properly referenced it now Oberon Houston (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the link (the italics go after the pipe, not before) but retained your spelling. The link remains red. Perhaps if you ask Rama, he might start an article on the ship for you - it is his area of expertise, I believe. Shem (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Main Picture

I want to use this picture - LINK [1] of the Wager by the famous marine artist Geoff Hunt as the main piece (and for the other HMS Wager article). I will contact Geoff to get permission for this and upload the image when I (hopefully) get the thumbs up. Oberon Houston (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a great picture - good luck. It will improve your case if you ask for a low-res version. Shem (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've spoken to Geoff Hunt (called him at his studio in Wimbledon) and have not got his permission by Email, he is just checking with the publishers who commissioned the piece before we can use it. This will be after 12 May as Geoff was just leaving when we spoke and is away until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Source - what is it?

One of the sources is "Walter, Richard. 1749 (5th Ed.). John and Paul Knapdon, London, p. 7". What is this? Does it have a title? Shem (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it, omitting the title was a mistake Oberon Houston (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Antique Geographical References

If anyone knows the modern name for the island of Sirocco, perhaps they could include it? The Wikipedia reference is a dead end and a quick Google query provided no answer. And I persume "St. Jago" is modern Santiago? If so, that reference should also be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.105.50 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not Sirocco - it's Socorro. Fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.105.50 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wager Mutiny/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

A few things to do here:

• Lead (see WP:LEAD): too short; a good lead is as good as a really short article. Consider two long paragraphs or three shorter ones for this length of article.
• Layout (see WP:LAYOUT): too many level two headings. Consider breaking the main story into 2 or three chunks with level three headings. Also the headings themselves are a little long (not too mush of a problem).
• Coverage: the section "HMS Wager" is too short (and lacks citations). We don't really get an idea from that and the following section what the Wager was doing without reading the other articles (which we shouldn't have to unless we wanted further details).
• Sourcing: I've indicated some citations needed (about a dozen). (Page ranges should be shown using en-dashes; see WP:DASH).
• Tone: As Wager, now alone, continued beating to the west, the question remained, when to turn north? - rather unencyclopedic as is Checking rebellious thoughts of the crew was British Naval law. Dissent by seamen or officers within the contemporary Royal Navy was met with a brutal and energetically-pursued vigour.. There are probably other examples to look out for. I suggest getting in the Guild (requests) if you can't "see" the problem (it takes some getting used to).
• Images: File:WagerMutiny 03.jpg needs a Template:PD-ART tag and for you to indicate where the photograph of the painting came from. File:WagerMutiny 01.jpg is clearly partly the work of Byron. Whilst you may have taken the photograph, you haven't established the copyright status of the underlying work. Make sure to keep these two things separate. It's {{PD-100}}, I think.

All in all, the article currently isn't ready for GA. There's just too much to work on here, so I'm failing the article at this juncture. Failing doesn't prejudice any future reviews, and the comments above should put you on the right track. Feel free to nominate again when they have been addressed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anna & Industry

Those of you who follow this article will notice that I've corrected the mistake related to the ships Anna and Industry, which was previously called Anna Pink, but 'pink' is in actual fact a type of square-rigged ship; see pink. I realised this when reading Patrick O'Brian's novel Post Captain where this type of ship is mentioned when he sees one in a painting and Jack Aubrey tells his companion (Diana Villiers) that given the way the artist has painted the scene with the land, wind and the ships sailing plan and position 'there she is on a lee-shore, there is no hope for them, poor fellows' (page 162). A 'pink' also now has its own entry in wikipedia too (flat bottomed store ships), or those with a narrow stern..

From memory only: The other pink in Anson's squadron was Industry which turned back before the Atlantic was fully crossed (having barely met it's contractual obligations), however Anna carried-on and even made the rounding of the Horn, albeit lost and alone like Wager. The crew of Anna had a considerable adventure actually, in a terrible storm they went onto a lee-shore but at the last minute sailed into a natural harbour on the Chilean west coast - finding this harbour and managing to enter it in the circumstances was little short of a miracle to my mind (cue similarities to the real Leopard fictitiously used in Patrick O'Brian's brilliant novel Desolation Island. The crew then recuperated, re-fitted and promptly sailed to Juan Fernandez island and re-joined Anson's squadron! I'll add this in, but I think the plucky exploits of Anna and her crew deserve an entry of her own (under the ship). Once I've gathered my required references I'll write it-up. Oberon Houston (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Report from Charles Crompton, British Ambassador to Portugal

I've added in the report of Wager survivors arriving in Lisbon before continuing on to England. This is dated 1 October 1742 and is from the British Ambassador, Charles Crompton, to the Secretary of State, the Duke of Newcastle. I found this report in the National Archives, REF: SP 89/42, which is the same reference I've used as that I've referenced for SWC Pack's version - he didn't provide detailed references in his book, so I am not definite what his source is. The two texts differ but I can't be sure his reference is SP 89/42 - I assumed it was, but didn't have time to read through the whole bundle (it is slow and time consuming as reading copper-plate hand writing is not easy, and the packet of papers has a few hundred sheets in it. To add some colour and interest to the article I've added digital photos of the dispatch to the article for readers to look at. Oberon Houston (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Letter from Captain Cheap to Anson

I found an original letter from Cheap to Anson in the British Library, transcript as follows...

12 Dec 1745 Admiral Anson

Sir

I should be unpardonable if I should let slip this opportunity which is the first that I have to of congratulating you on your safe arrival in your native country after so tedious and fatiguing a voyage and your having obtained the preferment you so justly deserve in the opinion of mankind; even your enemy's speak well of you, I mean the enemies of Great Britain for I believe you have no personal ones, and at the same time I take the liberty to assure you that no man on earth wishes your prosperity with a warmer heart than I do.

You are no doubt already informed of some of our misfortunes because I have been told that some of the officers and men are got home, but they know only a few of them and probably have not told the truth, for what can be expected from such poltroons who, rather than do their duty by endeavouring to join you (which might have easily been done) and look the enemy in the face; chose to expose themselves to the fatigue of so long a navigation, and perishing of hunger after most inhumanely abandoning us & destroying at their departure everything they thought could be of any use to us that they could not carry with them.

However Sir I will say no more upon that until I have the happiness of seeing you. Only give me leave to add that if the rest of the marine officers had done their duty as well as Mr Hamilton who is here with me, I have very good grounds to believe I should have brought the mutineers to reason; and although we unluckily miscarried in that and some subsequent projects, yet I hope you will be persuaded it was not for want of inclination.

You'll see by the letter that I wrote to Mr Secretary Corbett, the time of our sailing from chile and arrival at Brest and the subsequent sending us here to wait the result of the Court of Spain, which we daily expect, and hope it will being us leave to return home, but if we should be disappointed and kept longer here I must beg your favour and protection which I flatter myself I shall have whilst I behave myself as I ought; and when I behave otherwise I shall expect neither.

Sometime before we left Chile the Jesuits lent us what money we wanted and said it was by order of the General at Rome. I do not know from what quarter the credit came, however we took no more than we wanted to pay off a debt we had contracted with one of the supercargoes of the ship, which was nine hundred pieces of eight.

Messrs Byron and Hamilton (my two faithful companions & fellow sufferers) beg leave to kiss your hands and I am

Sir Your most Humble and most Obedient servant

David Cheap

Oberon Houston (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mutiny?

According to the article on the HMS Wager, "In the Royal Navy of 1741 officers' commissions were valid only for the ship to which they had been appointed; thus the loss of the ship implied the loss of any official authority. Seamen ceased to be paid on the loss of their ship. " This seems to imply that the crewmen were within their rights to disobey the captain, as his authority was no longer valid. This seems to contradict the version of events given on this page. One or the other must be correct, and they ought to be reconciled. If there is any possibility of there being some arguable truth behind this statement about the legality of the crews actions, it ought to be at least mentioned on this page, because here it sounds like a clear-cut case of unlawful mutiny, and there it sounds like a potentially-debatable act of mutiny. They ought to be in agreement..45Colt 09:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, hadn't gotten to the bottom of the page yet. Still seems like it would be nice to make brief mention of this argument in the initial narrative of the mutiny..45Colt 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• .45Colt, your first paragraph makes an excellent point. I included this reference in the article on The Unknown Shore. Some quotes:

...Eventually the four reached England, by which time Anson had returned in triumph and was now an Admiral. A Court Martial absolved the Captain of blame for the loss of HMS Wager and no action was taken against those members of the crew who had disobeyed his orders. However, to avoid such a situation reoccuring, Admiral Anson introduced an Act of Parliament in 1748 extending Naval discipline to crews wrecked, lost or captured.

This article's most cited reference is Stanley Walter Croucher Pack's 1952 book, entitled "The Wager Mutiny", which seems to characterize the events, after the wreck, as a "mutiny". I think this is highly misleading. It is not just that officer's authority over seamen ended when their pay stopped, when the ship was sunk, but officer's commission were also only for the ship, and ended when the ship was laid up -- or sunk. Similarly, the Navy regulations contained the same loophole.

I think including the word "mutiny" in this article's name lapses from WP:UNDUE, as does its focus on the chaos following the wreck as a mutiny. As per WP:UNDUE more focus should be given to (1) recognition that those who stopped following orders weren't necessarily mutineers; (2) Anson's reforms to the Navy's regulations to close the loophole that stripped officers of authority over ratings, when their ship was lost.

Perhaps a rename is in order. Geo Swan (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted this edit by an IP. Yes, John Byron was eventually promoted to Vice Admiral, but specifying this when discussing his role in the Wager incident is misleading. His eventual promotion is not relevant to his role in the Wager incident, as he was only a Master's Mate, a very junior officer. Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2019

.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Calidum 05:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Wager Mutiny → ? – As I explained, in October 2018, whether the incident was an actual mutiny is questionable.

This article's most cited reference is Stanley Walter Croucher Pack's 1952 book, entitled "The Wager Mutiny", which seems to characterize the events, after the wreck, as a "mutiny". I think this is highly misleading. It is not just that officer's authority over seamen ended when their pay stopped, when the ship was sunk, but officer's commission were also only for the ship, and ended when the ship was laid up -- or sunk. Similarly, the Navy regulations contained the same loophole. I think including the word "mutiny" in this article's name lapses from WP:UNDUE, as does its focus on the chaos following the wreck as a mutiny. As per WP:UNDUE more focus should be given to (1) recognition that those who stopped following orders weren't necessarily mutineers; (2) Anson's reforms to the Navy's regulations to close the loophole that stripped officers of authority over ratings, when their ship was lost.

So, I suggest that an article titles like HMS Wager incident, or Wreck of the HMS Wager would better serve our readers. Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Who was Stanley Walter Croucher Pack? I researched him, after seeing how extensively this article relies on his opinion. I wrote our article about him. He was, for decades, an instructor at the UK's Naval Academy. But he didn't teach maritime law, he taught nautical meteorology. So, I would have a lot of confidence on his opinions on early and mid-20th century meteorology, but I don't have confidence in his legal opinions. Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, it should be moved. If there is good reason to debate whether it was a mutiny, it seems only proper to not state it as if it was an established fact. I think "HMS Wager incident" is good. It was most definitely an "incident", and the article itself can deal with the fact that the sailors were alleged to have taken part in a mutiny, which they denied, etc, and explain the reasons. I see too many articles that assume things to be facts that cannot really be established as facts. For example, just because a person is convicted of a crime doesn't mean you ought to write an article saying "she/she murdered blank"; you should say "he/she was convicted of murdering blank". That doesn't try to state that they DID commit said crime. Even if they admitted it, it should say "he.she admitted to the murder of blank". Just my two cents.

Idumea47b (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see your point, but, after the wreck, some of the crew remained loyal to the captain, while others did not. It was a mutiny in the basic sense (rebellion against authority), if not in the strict navy legal sense. And, more importantly, it's referred to as a mutiny in reliable sources. --В²C ☎ 20:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, the fact that some of the crew decided to continue to follow the captain does not mean that the ones who chose not to should be called mutineers. That is a very serious charge – generally punishable by death and worse. Free men on land can choose to follow or not follow whomever they wish. Would we call someone a murderer who had committed no crime? We should not identify people as mutineers lightly. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The move review suggested that a new requested move, with difference of having a specific move target, would likely succeed. User:Geo Swan, i would support move to "HMS Wager incident". Having read the article, to me it sounds like mutiny could have been judged by the British naval court, but in fact all were acquitted; no mutiny was judged to have occured. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Tone

Somehow stating that the voyage was "...one of the most terrifying, challenging, heroic and adventurous circumnavigations of the globe ever completed..." isn't exactly encyclodpedic language. It sounds like something of off the dust jacket of a new book. At least leave the "heroic" claim out, since that's pretty much subjective. Or use the cop out of saying "it has been called one fo the most, etc" line, which re-establishes the tone of the encyclopeia as a source for plain facts. If it IS a fact that it has been called those things, that is. If not, then it's just one editor's opinion, ni matter how accurate that opinion may be in most people's eyes (most people probaly would agree with that description, but that's not the point).

Idumea47b (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Wager Mutiny → HMS Wager incident – See #Requested move 11 April 2019. With the exception of В²C, everyone who weighed in with an opinion on whether the article should be moved agreed to accept HMS Wager incident.

With regard to В²C's objections to that move -- there is no tactful way to say this, but they do not seem to have read, or understood, the fundamental underlying issue with the name "Wager Mutiny". Prior to the Wager incident ship's officers had immense authority over the crew of the ships they commanded -- while the ships remained afloat. Very brutal corporal punishment was routine. Officers could even kill crew members, during a genuine mutiny.

But the key point В²C seems to have missed is that, prior to the Wager incident, officers' legal authority to command crew members ceased once a ship was sunk. Once a ship was sunk its former captain had no more authority over his former crew than the lowliest cabin boy, or the ship's cat. В²C wrote: "I see your point, but, after the wreck, some of the crew remained loyal to the captain, while others did not. It was a mutiny in the basic sense (rebellion against authority)"

It could hardly be a "rebellion against authority" when the former Captain no longer had a scrap of legal authority over his former crew. Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. As near as I can tell reliable sources widely refer to it as a mutiny. For example:

  The longboat was sawn in half and lengthened with timber from the wreck and from the forest – a considerable technical feat. The captain then thought one of his officers was a mutineer and shot him dead. This markedly increased disaffection, and mutiny eventually broke out into the open, led by the austere Gunner Bulkeley and one of the Marine officers. They arrested the captain, tied him up, and forcibly deprived him of his command.[2]

—В²C ☎ 08:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As B2C points out, the current title is supported by reliable sources. The argument against it has at least a whiff of WP:OR. Colin M (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Pack (1952) it should probably be "The Wager Mutiny", with the definite article. A possible alternative might be "The Wager Disaster", also with a definite article, as per Layman (2015). Otherwise, if there are other principal sources, not listed here, which use "HMS Wager", perhaps they should be cited? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cheap and Hamilton's parole, Byron and Campbell initial imprisonment...

The article currently says: "Cheap and Hamilton removed to Santiago, as they were officers who had preserved their commissions. Byron and Campbell were unceremoniously jailed."

• "removed to Santiago"... did someone copy and paste this passage from something written a long time ago?
• In the 18th (an early 19th) century, Lieutenant and Captains were commissioned officers. As such, they were, technically, gentlemen. By convention, when captured, during wartime, their captives would routinely trust them trust them to find private accommodation, so long as they promised to not engage in hostilities, spying, trying to escape. This was called parole. They would be allowed to live comfortably, until an exchange could be arranged for captives of similar rank.
• In the 18th century Royal Navy no one could become a Lieutenant until they had served six years at sea. Officers are described as getting friends to list their sons on their books, so they could begin to serve that six years sea time, prior to actually serving at sea. This is how privileged officers, like Horatio Nelson, could earn promotion when still relatively young. What this meant was that, even though future officers, like John Byron, were given much of the authority of officers, when they were Master's Mates, they were only non-commissioned officers, warrant officers. So, socially, they would not be assumed to be gentlemen, who could give a trustworthy promise<ref name. There is nothing remarkable in Spanish authorities imprisoning them. Byron and Campbell were later released. Presumably Spanish authorities recognized they too were gentlemen, even if they weren't technically commissioned officers.

One interpretation of the current wording is that Cheap and Hamilton were officers who preserved their commissions, while Byron and Campbell did not manage to preserve their commissions. Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph above, you are correct, Cheap and Hamilton did preserve their commissions, Campbell and Byron did not have them. Quote from Byrons account, page 156 of the 1812 edition: "In a few days, Captain Cheap and Mr Hamilton were ordered up to St Jago, as they were known to be officers having saved their commissions; but Mr Campbell and I were to remain in prison." Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wager Mutiny/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 23:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

On an initial pass of this article, although there is clearly potential for a GA article here, I see quite a few problems that I expect will take some time to resolve:

• The text needs a good copy edit to tighten up the prose, remove potentially intricate detail, and streamline the narrative. There is excessive usage of ranks; it is OK to introduce a person with the rank e.g. Captain Cheap, but then use Cheap thereafter.
• There are quite a few dupe links.
• Everything needs to be sourced but there are a number of citation tags. I added a few where although a citation is provided for a quote, I am uncertain whether it also applied to the paragraph concerned.
• The usage of quotes is excessive.
• The further reading section is in the wrong place and includes some sources used in the article.
• The formatting of the various sources in the bibliography lacks consistency - the book template should be used.
• Some references, e.g. Sutton, Marley should be listed in the bibliography and a sfn used in the references instead.
• Some references lack page numbers e.g. note 73 to Byron & Morris and note 74 to Morris.
• I am uncomfortable with the reliance on the relatively historic sources used - these are OK for direct quotations to support the viewpoints/opinions of the persons involved but if possible modern sources should otherwise be used.

A more detailed review will probably identify further issues. Before I get too carried away with my comments, I just want to check that the nominator has the wherewithal to commit to the necessary revisions. I suspect that the remedial work involved will require full access to the modern sources at least (the historic ones may well be easily found online given they won't be under copyright). It may be better for me to quickfail this review to allow the necessary revisions to take place outside of the GA process and then renominate it when it is in a better condition. If that approach is taken, I would be happy to provide more feedback for improvements on the talk page on the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I see now you wrote the bulk of the article so presumably access to the sources won't be an issue. Zawed (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Oberon Houston: just checking you are aware of the above comments. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just read them, thank you. Whilst I do appreciate and understand your comments, I'm minded that the amount of work involved is too onerous. Personally I'm happy with the article as-is, and given that modern original sources are very limited, i.e. I will need to do (no-no) original research at the British Library and the British Museum it isn't really possible to satisfy the GA requirements, even before one considers covid. Oberon Houston (talk •

Oberon Houston, I don't mean to do original research, I just suspect that you may be able to reduce the number of times the old sources are cited by using the newer sources; it may mean having to rephrase things so that it is supported by the new sources (for example notes 14 & 15, dealing with the rounding of the Horn could be replaced by Williams although some detail may need trimming). I still think the bones of a GA are here. I will fail this article now in light of your comment but I would happy to take another look and provide more feedback before you submit it for GA again. I strongly suggest that you also take a look at a few recent GAs, including their reviews, to get an idea of how this article stacks up. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling of "Bulkeley"

The whole of this article, apart from the last instance in the penultimate paragraph, spells John Bulkeley's surname "Bulkley". But the citations in the "Further Reading" section and his own Wikipedia article spell it "Bulkeley". As an interested reader rather than a content creator, I don't want to blunder through the entire article changing all 48 instances, but I suggest this should be done (including the "References" section) unless there's a cogent reason to diverge from the spelling referred to and quoted from earlier sources. I am aware of the lack of standardisation in the spelling of English surnames in the past, but I can't see any discussion on why the form "Bulkley" was selected for this article. Neil (London) (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)