Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simon Hatley/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2018 [1].

Simon Hatley[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a man who shot an albatross that became famous in literary history. Whether he deserved it or not, I don't know, but it's why he is remembered.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I missed the peer review, so I have a few prose queries:

"...and assuring Hatley's literary fame." Hmm, I'm not so sure that many people remember, if they ever knew, that Coleridge's poem was based on the experiences of one Simon Hatley, so "fame" might be overdoing it. Perhaps "...assuring Hatley a place in literary history" or some such modified wording, would be more appropriate?
Early life: I'm still unsure about transatlantic comma usage, but to me, the comma after "Mary Herbert" looks superfluous.
Same section: "The residence was pulled down and rebuilt in 1704, after he had left home" – needs name, not pronoun
"...and third mate was a very junior officer position." A non sequitur where presently stated – this info correctly belongs to the previous sentence.
Career: "The first such voyage made by Hatley was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers." The clauses in this sentence seem oddly ordered. Surely the logical order is "The first such voyage made by Hatley, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers, was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides."
Voyage with Rogers: first mention of the Duke and the Duchess should explain that these were Rodgers' ships
Why the huge manpower? 183 and 151 respectively seems vastly more crew than necessary to sail these ships.

I've made it clearer that these were effectively warships, and so the more men to fight the better.

First captivity: "leaving real estate in Woodstock to his son Simon, though with a life estate to his widow." What is a "life estate"? I've heard of a "life interest", but the term "life estate" I've never encountered.

Linked and explained.

Shelvocke expedition: "The Speedwell completed her Atlantic passage." Seems like an unnecessary sentence.
"In spite of Hatley's attempt..." – what was he "attempting"? Some explanation needs to be added here. You say in the Literary influences section that Hatley shot the bird in the hopes of fairer winds – this information should be brought forward.

I am trying to incorporate Shelvocke's account into the article, though it is too large to blockquote. I'll make it clearer the reader is to look at the blockquote. After all, we have nothing to add to what he wrote.

A most intriguing story, giving body and context to something that I was vaguely aware of, from school probably, but had forgotten completely. You seem to be developing quite a taste for oddball articles – where next? Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done those things. In addition to your school days, you may remember Mr Hatley when he played a small part in the Woodes Rogers article, which I improved nine or so years ago and you reviewed at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns adequately answered. Nine years! Days of wine and roses. Brianboulton (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review and my few (v. minor) points were dealt with then. A rereading confirms the excellence of this article, which I found highly informative as well as a good read. Certainly of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 13:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

I'll review soon. First an image review, to get that out of the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - the licences and sources are generally fine, but are we sure that this[2] image was published in the US, and not the UK? I'm thinking PD-old should be added as well. As for the second image, could it get a date in the caption? There should also be space between its title and the preceding text.

All done.-Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references contain notes, aren't they better off moved to the notes section?
Perhaps the notes could be sourced.

Both the above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn and Coleridge are overlinked.

In both cases, I felt the first link was in an unexpected place, that might leave the reader without a ready link when they get to the real discussion about the cape, and Coleridge.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. But maybe Coleridge's full name should be spelled out at first mention outside the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Simon Hatley's sole biographer, Robert Fowke" Could we get a date? I assumed he was a contemporary, until I looked at the references.

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and Hatley purchased a pair of silk hose." How are such specific details known? Perhaps state what sources are available about his life for modern historians?

The account books for the Rogers expedition exist and mention his purchase. What there are are two sets of published journals for each of the two voyages, (Rogers and Cooke for the first, Shelvocke and Betagh for the second, some records in Oxfordshire, the records from Lima, that Fowke reviewed, the records of the Rogers expedition, probably I'm missing a few things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a Scottish sailor who had been left there" Link or spell out marooning?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, for a time, Hatley, who would inspire Coleridge's albatross-shooting Ancient Mariner, Selkirk, probably the original for Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe and Dampier, possibly the inspiration for Jonathan Swift's Lemuel Gulliver (of Gulliver's Travels), shared the same vessel." That is pretty fascinating!

I know. I mean, who would have thought?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"There, a native spotted the ship, and Hatley and his crew were captured" Is the date known?

Late May, Fowke says. Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did Hatley do between 1713 and 1719? I guess it isn't known?

Other than selling his property, we don't know. He called himself a mariner on the deed, "Mariner, Gent."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link albatross outside the lead also?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got everything. Thank you for your reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me now, interesting to read about the everyday lives of "pirates". FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yo ho ho.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~, one comment~~ In line 1 of career you describe his theatre of action as the South Pacific, perhaps just "Pacific" would be more accurate. I'm no sailor, but I doubt that treasure ships between the Philippines and Mexico would cross the equator, and Ecuador is, well, on the equator, rather than what we would think of as South Pacific Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support, I've changed it to "Pacific coast of South America".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and Wehwalt: Sources are all consistently formatted an appear to be of appropriate reliability. I haven't checked the contents of them, but I've verified that the ISBNs correspond to the books listed. The only problem I spotted is that we seem to be missing a publisher location for Woodard (2007), which ought to be fixed but isn't worth holding up promotion imo if that's the only thing standing in the way (I haven't reviewed the article, just happened to spot Ian's request for a source review). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that now. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.