Talk:Woodes Rogers/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi, here is the GA review. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"He is perhaps best known today as the captain" - don't like the "perhaps"
"beginning a seven-year apprenticeship" - this helps to become a voting member?
"The ships intended to force the chilly.." - is this referring to the expedition? Ships - plural - is used several times
"a practice by no means universally accepted " - don't know if this is slightly POV
"ships" - although it sounds like more than one ships, it is hard to believe the ships all acted in unison this way.
"Selkirk, who had been part of the ship's crew that abandoned Dampier after losing confidence in his leadership" - I think this is the first mention that a ship's crew abandoned Dampier ?? - seems like wrong place if this is first mention.
"and even after capturing the town, the expedition took little away except the bubonic plague" - I don't know - is this too cute?
If crews mutiny, then there must be only one ship, or do all the crews mutiny together?
Given all the detail about Woodes Rogers' career, I think the lead needs to include more, that is, summarize more of the article.

'Rogers wrote that he was "perplexed with the melancholy prospect of his affairs' - not sure where quote ends

I am going to complete this later, as this article is hard to follow. I think the reader needs to be given more guidance via the headings and the lead as to what to expect in the articlt. There appears to be a maze of detail.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I got rid of the "perhaps" and rewrote the lede to include more detail.

Yes, being apprenticed to a local master could put you on the path to being a freeman, or voting citizen, or being a member of the right family (neither book I have makes it clear if the apprenticeship was enough, or whether more had to be done, but it was moot when he married Sarah). Bristol was actually fairly liberal with the franchise from what I know of pre-Reform England.
There were multiple ships, the Duke and the Duchess (plus various prize vessels captured, then mostly either lost or sold or ransomed in the Pacific). Rogers headed the expedition, and was captain of the Duke. I'm not clear on where you think the ships should not have acted in concert.
I've added the detail on Dampier. Woodard does a little foreshadowing there by mentioning that one man chose to be marooned rather than sail on the ship, but he omits key details like the fact that (a) the ship (the Cinque Ports) had already sailed away from Dampier's ship) and (b) Selkirk changed his mind, but his crewmates wouldn't take him back, so I resisted the temptation.
Yeah, the bubonic plague is a little cute, but I kinda like it. They definitely screwed up at Guayaquil, though, so the sailors ripped up the stone floor of the church where recent plague victims had been buried, hoping to get something to take with them, which they did.
On mutiny, the reference is to the crew of all the ships (at that time four); Woodes went to some lengths to appease them, promising them a greater share of the money. Fortunately or no, that was about when they captured their main prize, so that helped morale no end.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Maybe the article should be reframed slightly. The Robinson Crusoe connection rather throws the reader off. The question is whether this man would be written about if not for Crusoe. Getting into the article, it seems like the answer is yes. He was very involved in the history of his day and in issues, such as shipping, pirates, mutinies (which seems like a theme that runs through any description of being a captain in those days), marooning and coincidentally Crusoe. The whole issue of mutinies and marooning seems embedded in the sea captain part. I can't imagine appeasing one crew, never mind four at once. And these themes carry through to much of the Bahamas part. I've read several articles lately about pirates, and here, even today we have Somalian pirates. The wild vicissitudes of being connected with the seafaring and colonialism etc. Actually, Crusoe can be seen as a is a side note. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little makes it very clear that the line between seaman and pirate was very thin, many flipped back and forth during their career. Of course a privateer is very close to a pirate. How do you suggest reframing? I don't see how it is possible to avoid mentioning Selkirk and Crusoe in the lede paragraph, it is a good part of what he is known for.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should leave it out at all. But you could tie it in to the larger context. I always thought Robinson Crusoe was an isolated case, but it sounds from the article that marooning was a frequent strategy for mutinies and disagreements, the difference with Crusoe being that he survived and was rescued. And it does sound like "the line between seaman and pirate was very thin". All the more interesting. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to avoid mentioning Selkirk more than needed. He gets some play in the lede, a bit when he is rescued, and some more after Rogers gets home, where it is relevant to sales of the book. Even though Little's bio of Rogers is entitled "Crusoe's Captain". Whatever sells. By the way, I don't think the Selkirk situation was common. Basically, he refused to sail on the Cinque Ports because he correctly thought it was unseaworthy. Then he changed his mind and wanted to go, but the crew said no, you made your choice. Good thing, because the ship did sink and the survivors were imprisoned by the Spanish. Not many inhabitable islands with no one on it for Selkirk to play, er, Robinson Crusoe! How would you suggest doing this? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is ironic! What a lucky man. I don't mean that his exact situation was common, but in reading your article, I received the impression that marooning a person was a "solution" to problems like mutiny. I have also read that a solution was to set a bunch of people adrift in a rowboat or something, just to get rid of them and knowing they could not possibly survive. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was Bligh and the Bounty, and they did survive because Bligh was an amazing seaman and kept exceptional lifeboat discipline. But yeah, getting a malcontent off the ship was a solution. Remember, Rogers used it too, he sent the mutiny leaders back to England.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

What is the significance of owning "shares in many ships" if you still have to go off fishing nine months out of the year?
Could "Voyage of the Duke and Duchess" be shortened to "Voyages" as it is not immediately clear to the reader what the ship names signify?

—Mattisse (Talk) 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I guess I put it in there because it is in the source and it emphasized Woods' wealth. Maybe he was one of the old salts who just was not happy on land. I can ax it if you like. I'll shorten the section head.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, technically, these two ships were on the same voyage, operating as consorts. They also made only one such trip, so "voyages" wouldn't be an improvement. The phrase "Voyage of Duke and Duchess" has been often repeated in the published literary and scholarly accounts over the centuries, so has some historical gravitas. Vincent pearse (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "privateering voyage". Mattisse, does it meet the GA criteria, or is there some change I need to make?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Article titles, headings, and sections, it is better to have short titles that do not repeat words. Specifically, the repetition of the word "voyage" in the section headings - is there a way around that? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It mets GA. You have done a very good job. I was thinking that you were going to take it to FAC so I was going to go through it more carefully. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am, so please feel free. I trust you a lot more than a random peer review!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]