Talk:James Cook/GA1

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

Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 19:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

All looks very good.

• Typos: "tranquility" -> tranquillity, "honor" -> honour

  Done. Noleander (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Can we have references for the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Early life", "Adopted" and "Motto" in the coat of arms, footnote u, y, ac, al, a, aw, bc, be.

Done. Added cites for Last sentences of 1st paragr of "Early Life"; Coat of Arms: motto & adopted date; [y] = Tasmania == Van Diemen's Land. Removed all other footnotes listed above, since they are not too significant (removed by commenting-out; may restore some in the future if cites can be located). Noleander (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Rather a lot of footnotes. Consider folding some of them into the text. But meh.

Agree the number of footnotes is unusually large. But they will be useful during final FA preparation. So, my preference is to leave them all in place - temporarily - and then during Peer Review and final FA preparation, either promote some up into the Body text; or eliminate them. Noleander (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Merge paragraphs two and three of "Early life" (MOS:PARA)

  Done. Noleander (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "So at age 26, he entered the Navy" Royal Navy?

  Done. Noleander (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "more quickly in the military" Americans use "military" to mean any of the defence forces, but in the context of this article, it will be taken to mean "the British Army", which is not what you mean. Re-phrase.

  Done. Noleander (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Canada: Link Royal Society, Admiralty

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• "the ship went aground on a shoal." Unlink (WP:EASTEREGG)

  Done. Noleander (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• " the rank of lieutenant" Link Lieutenant (navy)

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Australia: "careened" is a duplicate link

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• "some of Cook's remains were returned to the Resolution, including several bones, the skull, some charred flesh, and the hands with the skin still attached" Do we know how this occurred?

Done. Reworded to On 19 February, a truce was arranged, and some of Cook's remains were returned to the Resolution, including .... The source for the truce is Thomas 2003, p 401, which is already a cite at the end of that (existing) sentence. Noleander (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• " Attacks on public monuments to Cook have continued in a number of countries." Can we name them? (And some Wikipedians are anal about "a number of")

Done. Reworded to Attacks on public monuments to Cook have occurred in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Noleander (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

More to come...

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the detailed feedback. I've addressed all of the comments you made above (and also the three cites, listed below, that failed verification). The only suggestion I did not implement was "Rather a lot of footnotes" ... see my thoughts on that, above. Let me know if you see any other GA-related improvements for this article. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• All sources are of good quality
• Spot checks of sources:

  21, 165, 262, 317, 318: Okay

  31: Cannot find this on page cix

  Replaced this with more modern 2ndary source: Thomas, 2003, pp 18-20. Noleander (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  236: I have to get this one from Hancock

  Material is on page 671 of Beaglehole 1974. Cite is Beaglehole 1974, pp. 669–672. Noleander (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Verified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  261: This is actually on page 426

  Thanks for catching that: changed page range from 424-425; to 424-426. Noleander (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: