Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Woodes Rogers


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009.

Woodes Rogers

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it recently passed GA and I think it can pass FAC as well. The 300th anniversary of some of the events in Rogers' life is upon us and it seems a good time to move forward on it. Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Weak oppose (see comments added below). Pretty good, but a few random concerns after a quick read-through:- *Some tendencies to POV evident, e.g. "An ill-fated attack", and the sentences towards the end: "Rogers' second term as governor was less dramatic than the first, but was still difficult". *Reference [39] is not properly formatted.
 * One very awkward phrase stood out: "Rogers' friend, Daniel Defoe's, classic novel Robinson Crusoe" Needs rephrasing to avoid the confusion of commas and apostrophes.
 * I'm a bit concerned at the over-reliance on a single source (Woodard) - 36 out of 55 citations.
 * It's now [50] but still not formatted properly
 * Comment I got rid of the author's blog and just cited to the book.

I'll try and read it more thoroughly over the next few days and perhaps add to these comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I can bring down the reliance on Woodard.  I've corrected the awkward phrase and the two phrases you think are POV.  I've taken care of the ref--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the use of Woodard by about four. Also added two other refs and used one or two from each.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Added comments: I have read through to the Homeward voyage section, and have found numerous concerns which I think need to be addressed before the article is ready for promotion. **The assertion "He is best known..." reads like a personal view. The "best" is the problem; I suggest modify to "he is also known..." **I think it would be appropriate in the lead to mention that Rogers completed a marine apprenticeship, which would make "Rogers led the expedition..." more understandable. **I have problems with the statement: "Rogers became the first Englishman to lead a cicumnavigation of the globe while retaining his original ships and most of his men". The impression is that this feat had greater validity than Drake's. Drake's circumnavigation 120-odd years earlier was completed in the same ship he started out in, admittedly after the loss of the rest of his flotilla and many of his men. But it was still an historic feat, and shouldn't be lessened by implication. I would prefer something like "Rogers matched Sir Francis Drake's feat of circumnavigating the globe, in his case retaining his original ships and most of his crew". **It would be helpful if, in a few words, the basis of the crew's suit could be mentioned. **What was the nature of Rogers' apprenticeship? I imagine it was served at sea; are there any details of what he did or where he went? Seven years is a big slice of early life to be passed over without comments. ****Even with the sparse information available, it may be worth adding a line such as: "It is possible that during this time he served with the Newfoundland fleet". The point is to demonstrate that he had sea-going experience before emerging as a captain. I don't think my suggested sentence goes further than what is said in the source. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC) **There are confusions in the second paragraph, partly arising from Rogers' father having so similar a name. I suggest the second mention of "Woodes Rogers" becomes a pronoun "he" ; that Whetstone becomes "the Rogers' neighbour and a close family friend"; that the rather anonymous "the captain died" becomes "Captain Rogers died". **Captain Rogers was earlier described as "wealthy". Woodes Rogers now inherits the family ships and businesses, so presumably he became wealthy, too. Yet there is no information given as to what he did with these assets. Later we learn that his share of the proceeds from his round-the-world voyage was used to discharge family debt. So what happened to the ships and businesses? **I don't think the first paragraph of this section is relevant to this article. **"This was a desperate move on the part of Captain Dampier to save his career". If that statement isn't cited, it's POV **How was Rogers "forced" to spend a month in Ireland? What is the source for the information about a mutiny and various punishments? This whole paragraph looks seriously in need of extra citation. **"They were forced to nearly sixty-two degrees south latitude". Why is this information written out? It should be "62°S", or "62° South". **"...nearly setting a furthest south record for that time". As a matter of interest, does the source indicate what the farthest south was thought to be at that time? If it was Dirk Gerritsz's claimed sighting of the South Sandwich Islands in 1599, that claim is unconfirmed. Rogers, if he really went to 62°, may well have held the record, but there are many unconfirmed claims to high latitudes in the Drake Passage, up to the time of Captain Cook. ****I think it's OK to leave the latitude in, but expressed in terms of a claim rather than a fact. When I worked on Farthest South, I deliberately left out a number of claims to high southern latitudes, including those of Gerritsz and Rogers, because these claims could not be verified. I would suggest: "...a difficult oceanic passage; Rogers claimed they were forced to almost 62° South which, "for ought we know...." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC) **The facts in the first two sentences of the section look in need of citation.  **"...his old commodore" – "commander" would be better (Dampier wasn't Selkirk's personal "commodore").  **"(today Ecuadorean) town..." reads clumsily. I am sure there is a neater way of putting this, not involving intrusive brackets. '***Done' **"...and even after capturing the town, the expedition took little away except the bubonic plague, of which six men died" This reads rather glibly, more journalism than encyclopedia. Suggest reword.  **Can the various amounts be given modern equivalent values? A visit to MeasuringWorth.com will calculate these. I am enjoying the article, but feel these points need to be settled before I can support it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Done
 * Done
 * Rephrased without reference to Drake, since they are not directly compared in the refs I have.
 * Done
 * Early life
 * Comment Little says it was "to learn the art of a sailor" which I've rephrased to "profession". I can find nothing on what he did, and he doesn't address it in his journal.  Woodard speculates that he would have gone with the Newfoundland fleet, but doesn't say it for a fact.  Sorry.
 * Done
 * I've tweaked it a bit further, to avoid over-repetition of names. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've cleared that up. The Rogers (some of this must have happened before Woods died) suffered considerable losses against the French.  We know about the slave trader that he lost to the French.  Rogers also mentions unspecified losses to the French in the introduction to his book, and I've discussed that now.  I think the continuity of the article is improved.
 * Preparation and the early voyage
 * Comment I'm happy to talk about it, but the only reason privateering was possible was that Spain and England were at war. If they hadn't been, Rogers would have been, pure and simple, a pirate.
 * The revisions have dealt with this point. Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * – as are phrases such as "a disastrous expedition". The details of this expedition - the munities, sinkings etc - also need to be specifically cited.
 * Comment They are from pages 67 and 70 of Woodard (68 and 69 is a map). A sample:  "Dampier was more desperate to leave England than Rogers could possibly have known.  Despite his fame, his career was in shambles ..."  But I cited more directly.  It is all there, and there is a generous free sample of the book on Google books if you want to double check.
 * I'm happy with the additional citations. Would it be possible, in the bibliography, to include the links to the Google books (Woodard and Leslie), as this would be most useful to readers?
 * Comment I just cited at the end of the paragraph, but I have broken it up. According to Little, 40 of the Bristol sailors deserted or were dismissed, and they had to be replaced.
 * Done
 * Comment That's coming from Woodard, because Rogers notes in his book that they made it to 61°53' S and says in his journal, "for ought we know is the furthest that any one has yet been to the southward, and where we have no night". I avoided citing directly to Rogers' journal because of WP's dislike of primary sources when secondary ones are available.  There's no citation to anything in Woodard.  I can easily cut it out.  Woodard is probably hedging for the same reasons that you are commenting on.
 * Rescue of Selkirk
 * Done
 * Comment They weren't shipmates. Dampier led the expedition from the St. George; Selkirk was in the Cinque Ports.  Woodard says (p. 75) of the Cinque Ports:  "whose captain and officers had lost confidence in their commodore's leadership and sailed off on their own".  So it seems a proper usage.  If you think commander is better, that is fine, I was trying to stress that they were not in the same ship without going on a tangent.
 * 'Done with reluctance, because I kinda liked that wording, but Mattisse said the same thing.
 * Well, I liked it, too, but we all have to make sacrifices. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Homeward voyage
 * "...with the British company eventually receiving £6,000" - which British company, and why did they receive it?
 * Done It was to settle the BEIC's claim for breaching the monopoly. In fact, as soon as the three ships (Duke, Duchess, and a prize renamed the Alderman Batchelor dropped anchor, agents of the East India Company threw notices of seizure aboard.  It was an amicable settlement, though one of the investors was fairly ticked off.
 * I did, although the six thousand pound figure gave two variant equivalents, of which I chose the lesser. How do I cite that?
 * I've done the citations, which include a note that RPI equivalents have been used. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll deal with these and get back to you with either changes or comments. To work.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've taken care of all those except where noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on remaining sections:- **"...and Rogers was forced to sell his Bristol home to support his family". I suggest, by way of a reminder as to his financial position, a brief insert: "...and Rogers, because of his heavy business losses, was forced..." **("first, this time, ...) is awkwardly put. I suggest simplify to "this time getting advance permission ..." - and doing away with the brackets. **It might be useful to add: "who had succeeded Queen Anne in 1714" to the first mention of George I **I'm not sure I understand "the ex-pirates living on the island who had not been called upon to accept it" (i.e. the King's pardon). Can you clarify? **Sentence should not begin and end with "The assembly"  **This is trivia. Suggest delete.
 * Financial difficulties etc
 * "bailiwick" should be linked.
 * Each of these done
 * First term
 * Blackbeard: at first mention, would it not be more encyclopedic to refer to him as "Edward Teach, known as "Blackbeard"?
 * There are two ands in this (the Blackbeard) sentence.
 * "...who had gone pirate" is just a bit too informsl. "Turned" might be more acceptable, or "become pirates".
 * The sentence beginning "The execution so cowed..." is a bit long and convoluted. Suggest omit the second "so", and end the sentence after "support". Then: "After their arrest Rogers had them released as harmless.
 * The first sentence of the 5th paragraph might read better as "On 16 March 1719 Rogers learned that Spain and Britain were at war again".
 * In the final paragraph, to avoid repetition of "peace", you could say: "The year 1720 brought an end to external threats to Rogers' rule. With Spain and Britain at peace again...."
 * "...thrown in debtors prison". Isn't "thrown" a bit dramatic? Is there a neutral way of saying this?
 * Each of these done
 * Return to England
 * In fiction

When the outstanding matters are dealt with I shall have no problem switching to support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All sounds good. I am in a seminar all day and am checking this at lunch.  Will work on it tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All changes implemented That should do it, Brian.  Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just two points remaining: the links to the Google books, and my suggestion relating to Rogers' farthest south (see above). Meantime I have struck the oppose, and will support when these two final issues are answered.Brianboulton (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased the latitude question, again avoiding citing directly to Woodes' book in favor of a secondary source. I gave the URL for the generous limited preview on the Woodard book.  As there is no such preview (only a snippet view) available for Little, I don't see any point in adding the link, but I will if you insist.  Up to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I have formatted the Google book links (including one to a large slice of Leslie's book) and put them under External links. I wonder whether you need the "Government offices" template at the end of the article, since it merely repeats information given in the infobox. I am happy with the various responses to my points; this is an excellent article fully deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The succession boxes? I consider them harmless and since we don't name Phenney or Thompson, and they are not likely going to have articles anytime soon, might as well leave them, because if you take them out, someone will just try to reinsert it.  I kinda like them actually, I've had some fun and have put in succession boxes for Plantagenet Palliser.  Anyhow, thanks for the support and the work on the links, you clearly had something in mind a little different from what I thought you were saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the "succession" boxes, it's just that this exact information is given in the infobox. It's not a sticking point with me, but do we need the same info twice? Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, point taken. Succession boxes scrapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment:
 * Sources look good. But, the notes need en-dashes between page ranges (some have them, most don't). JonCatalán(Talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán(Talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rogers,Woodes.jpg - We need a source and an author for this image. A more specific date would be preferable.
 * File:William Dampier - Project Gutenberg eText 15675.jpg - The source link is broken. It is best to list the entire bibliographic entry for the source per WP:IUP. We also need a date and an author.
 * File:Vane.JPG - We need a source for this image.
 * File:Rogersplaque.jpg - The Flickr check says that the license doesn't match, but it does, therefore the Flickr check needs to be changed on Commons.
 * Images are not my area; I've asked for help on this one after I think taking care of what you wanted in the first image. It will get done, don't worry.  I really don't have a clue how to deal with Flickr licenses personally!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the source link and basic information for File:William Dampier - Project Gutenberg eText 15675.jpg, added source and date information for File:Vane.JPG, and updated the Flickrreview information on File:Rogersplaque.jpg. All should be good. - auburn pilot   talk  03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks AuburnPilot! Now you have piloted a privateer in addition to the university!  OK, I think that resolves Awadewit's concerns.  Who's next to walk the plank?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think I cleaned up the things that Sandy referred to in edit summaries on the article. If anyone sees an odd dash that shouldn't be there, please let me know. I think they are all cleaned up.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Will be able to fully support once the remainder of User:Brianboulton's very good comments are addressed. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisional Support
 * They're all done, Mattisse. Whew.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed to full support per resolution of Brianboulton's points. I appreciate your responsiveness to these issues. It is a wonderful article, incorporating many "threads" of history and adventure. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support

Support As a ships enthusiast, and having worked on Edward Low early in my experience at FAC, I am delighted to come across this article. This is well done. I got a good chuckle when I was fixing the date formatting in the references and found an accessdate that was the same as a publication date, checked the edit history, and found that was the same day you began editing the article. I guess you read the Telegraph, eh? :) I do have one minor quibble: the section 'First term' ends with several sentences about Rogers' return to England, yet the subsequent section header is 'Return to England'; suggest relocating those sentences. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You tracked it back to the source! Well done!  I'll play with the Return to England situation, it seems better to rename the section than to move the material.  Thanks for the edits and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.