Talk:The Log from the Sea of Cortez

Jon?
Rickett's diary says:
 * ''Jon said, "If you have an objective, like collecting specimens, it puts so much more direction onto a trip, makes it more interesting."...Then he said, "We'll do a book about it that'll more than pay the expenses of the trip."

Does he really spell Steinbeck's name Jon? If so, there should be a [sic] afterwards; otherwise it should be corrected. Rigadoun (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does. I'm not a big fan of "[sic]": as well as breaking the flow it always looks to me like finger pointing. I'll put a comment in the markup though, how's that? Yomangani talk 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My research about Ed is that writing Jon without a "h" was done in part to conserve space, speed up writing, and to be special in their friendship. Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnson Seahorse
This is what the "Sea-Cow" really was. The pseudonym is meant to avoid a defamation suit while keeping absolutely no-one in the dark about the motor's true identity. The Seahorse was ubiquitous at the time. I'm old enough to have used models similar to Steinbeck's, and they were indeed infuriating. Hence the humour of his scientific "Sea-Cow" descriptions. I first encountered them in high school, and read one aloud in class, to the great amusement of my similarly boat-literate classmates. Anyway, the first mention of the Sea-Cow should be followed by "(a pseudonym for the popular Johnson Seahorse)", or words to that effect. Laodah 03:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Very true, and taking the story to a deeper level of understanding. Cool.Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009
As part of the this drive Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009 the article has been reviewed. I believe the article needs a Featured Article Review for the following reasons;

Desertarun (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * around one third of the refs are WP:Primary.
 * the prose does not WP:FLOW in many places and needs a copyedit.
 * there are unreferenced paragraphs
 * there are long paragraphs with just one reference making factual statements that need an inline reference.