Wikipedia:Peer review/James Cook/archive4

RoySmith

• My first impression was "this is a long article". WP:TOOBIG puts 9166 words (per DYKCheck) into the "Probably should be divided or trimmed" bucket. That's only a rule of thumb, but as you work on this, I'd suggest being in "do I really need that?" mode.

Agree. I'm already in the "does it really need that?" mode. Fortunately, the article has several sub-articles, so trimming text does not mean it disappears from WP entirely: it simply gets moved to a footnote or sub-article. I'm working hard to get it under 9,000 prose words. Noleander (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• I dropped the 10-year-old semiprotection. I hope that doesn't turn out to be a mistake.

No objections here. Noleander (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• algebra, geometry, trigonometry, navigation and astronomy probably worth wikilinking all of those, but I'm not sure how to do that without running into WP:SEAOFBLUE problems.

Those terms seem rather common, so perhaps links are not needed. But if you think they are required, let me know. Noleander (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• following which he was promoted, "after which" sounds better.

Fixed. I copy edited that entire paragraph. Noleander (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• March 1756 when he was briefly master of Cruizer ... In June 1757, Cook passed his master's examinations How was he a master before passing the exam?

Agree, the article should be improved to reduce reader confusion. Technically, the wording of that sentence is accurate: he was the leader (master) of the small boat named Cruizer, and later passed the exam to get the official title/rank of "master". To help readers, I reworded to "His first command was in March 1756 when he was briefly in charge of Cruizer ... " and added a footnote that reads "The master of a ship was responsible for navigation and sailing the ship. The master was subordinate to the captain." Noleander (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• as master under Captain Robert Craig this is a little confusing. I thought "master" and "captain" were more or less synonymous, so being a master under a captain confuses me.

That is a common confusion in naval articles. The terms "master", "commander" and "captain" can each mean either a role or a rank. Sometimes they are roles/responsibilities (usually lowercase); sometimes they are ranks/titles (lowercase, but uppercase before a name). In this sentence, "master" is a particular role/job on the ship, and he is subordinate to the ship's captain. Perhaps the footnote I added (see issue immediately above) will help clarify this for some readers. Noleander (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Major-General James Wolfe's SEAOFBLUE

Done. Removed link from the rank. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• While in Newfoundland, Cook precisely recorded the start and end times of a solar eclipse What year was this? Presumably 1765-ish, which is just about the time the very first marine chronometers were becoming available, so probably worth mentioning what sort of time instrument he used here. The method described here would have been on the cutting edge of technology for the day, which explains why this was worthy of the Royal Society.

I don't think the sources identify the timepiece.This experiment only required an ordinary timepiece that was precisely set to local time on that day (timepiece's noon == sun at its highest point). The timepiece did not need to be a chronometer, or be able to hold time for long periods, because the measured times were then compared to known times in a European city, which allowed them to compute the longitude of the observation site. The sources say that the results were not significant and never used for anything. Cooks partner in UK, that did the computations, sent a letter to the Royal Society about the results, and it was printed in their journal, but it was not important. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• The publicly stated goal was to observe the 1769 transit of Venus from the vantage point of Tahiti I'd give a little context here, i.e. why he had to go all the way to Tahiti to do this. You might want to link to the more specific 1769 transit of Venus observed from Tahiti instead of the generic Transit of Venus.
  • Oh, I see you do that later on.

I added the following sentence to the existing footnote that discusses the location of the transit observations: "Observing the transit of Venus from several points on the earth would enable astronomers to compute the distance from the earth to the sun." Noleander (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• outlined in sealed orders not to be opened until Cook reached Tahiti why the sealed orders?

Good catch: readers will want to know. I believe they were sealed so that the crew would not know, thus reducing the risk of the crew blabbing in ports and revealing the British plans to other countries. I'll try to find a source that explains the rationale. On a related topic: The sources do not explicitly say if Cook was verbally told of the contents of the sealed orders, but it was clear he knew, because he had to know to properly provision the ship. Noleander (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Unable to find a source that explains this. I'll keep looking. Noleander (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• During the overnight excursion, his two black servants, Thomas Richmond and George Dorlton, froze to death surely this deserves some explanation. Were these people simply not provided with appropriate clothing?

Banks and other survivors claim that the two victims broke into some alcohol and got drunk, which contributed to their deaths. I deliberately omitted that, since Banks (and other survivors) credibility seems questionable: they may want to cover up their own negligence (did Banks have a coat, yet he failed to give a coat to his servants/slaves)? As the first deaths of the first voyage, the deaths themselves seem notable, but other details perhaps should go into the First voyage of James Cook article. On a related topic, the article has no discussion about the true status of the black servants (there were several, carried on all the voyages): were they effectively slaves? Again, perhaps beyond the scope of this article. Noleander (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• arriving at Tahiti on 13 April 1769 the transit they observed was almost two months later. Any idea what they did during that interval?

Done. Added "The crew had two months to prepare for the transit. During that period, they replenished their provisions and built a small fort – which they named Point Venus – to enclose the equipment that would be used for observing the transit. Noleander (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• How did Cook communicate with the native Tahitians? Did he have a translator?

Good point ... I'll try to find a source that covers it. My guess is: the island had already been visited by the English (Wallis on the Dolphin) and French (Bougainville) before Cook. So some Tahitians may have spoken some English and French. Also: the Endeavour carried a couple of sailors (Gore & Clerke) that visited Tahiti already (when serving on the Dolphin) ... so they probably spoke some Tahitian. Plus, of course, everyone was able to learn each other's languages during day-to-day interactions. I'll look for a source that discusses this topic. Noleander (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Unable to find a source that explains this. I'll keep looking. Noleander (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• You should explain what careening a ship means.

Done. Now reads: ".. was small enough to be careened (laid on its side for repairs)... " Noleander (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

(taking a break, I'll pick up with Second voyage (1772–1775) another day)

• She was fitted out at Deptford with the most advanced navigational aids of the day, including an azimuth compass, ice anchors, and an apparatus for distilling fresh water from sea water this makes it sound like ice anchors and distillation apparatus are both navigational aids, which could be fixed with some different punctuation. Also, at least in modern parlance a Navigational aid is something like a buoy or a lighthouse; "navigation instruments" would probably be a better term here.

Done. Changed to She was fitted out at Deptford with some of the most advanced equipment available, including an azimuth compass, ice anchors, ... Noleander (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• but his excessive demands for modifications to the ship clarify whether "his" refers to Banks or Cook.'

Done. Noleander (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• The primary objective of the second voyage was to determine if the hypothesised continent Terra Australis existed this seems a little odd, as it had already been stated at the beginning of the major section. I don't have any concrete suggestions for how to reword it, however.

Done. Removed the duplicate statement of fact. Paragraph now begins Based on Cook's observations made during the second voyage, the general consensus was that Terra Australis did not exist. ... Noleander (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Two books were published in 1777 about the expedition: one by Cook, and another by the Forsters I know the general thought at FAC is to eschew short paragraphs, but I'm of the school that each paragraph should cover one topic, and putting this sentence in the paragraph having to do with Terra Australis violates that. And, again, I'm unable to make any concrete suggestions for how to fix it.

I share your "short paragraphs are okay" philosophy; but, as you say, some reviewers cannot stand single-sentence paragraphs. As a solution: I changed the article as follows: (1) A single paragraph is dedicated to the "Terrra Australis does not exist" topic; and (2) moved the "Two books were written.." sentence into the following paragraph, which is already serving as a list of "summing up" type events that happened in Britain after they returned from the 2nd voyage. Noleander (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• he met with James Boswell tell the reader who Boswell was.

Done Now reads ... and he met with noted author James Boswell. Noleander (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

(picking up with Third voyage)

• To keep the goal of the mission secret, the Admiralty publicly declared more secret orders. Any idea why the Admiralty wanted to keep it a secret?

I know why, but it looks like the sources treat it as a "it goes without saying" fact, so I'm having trouble finding a source that explicitly states the reason. I'll keep looking. Noleander (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

(Science, technology, and seamanship)

• revealed the existence of several new lands and cultures Calling these "new" is rather ethnocentric. Maybe "lands and cultures previously unknown to the Europeans"?

Done. Changed per suggestion. Noleander (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

(Personal life and character)

• This section seems a little out of place. I had to go back and forth to sort out the chronology of the events described here (marriage, births of children) relative to his three voyages, so I'd suggest some clarification there.

Done. Added a few words indicating which children were born between which voyages. Noleander (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• In the image caption, you say "a rare instance", but in the body it's the stronger "only known example".

Done. Changed so both are "only known example". Noleander (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Cook was not religious or mystical; and not romantic or dramatic kind of an awkward construct. Maybe "Cook was not religious or mystical, nor was he romantic or dramatic."?

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Cook did not often confide in fellow officers about his private thoughts or plans and then later often secretive about his long-term plans seems a bit of awkward repetition. Maybe there's some cleaner way to say that both historians said this?

Done. Eliminated duplication. Noleander (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, that does it for me. Overall, an excellent article that I'm sure will do well at FAC. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

PS, if you're so inclined, could I encourage you to leave some comments at Louis Abramson? RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll start today. Noleander (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

BTW, no investigation of anything related to the history of navigation would be complete without at least seeing what Bowditch has to say about it. At the bottom of Bowditch's American Practical Navigator, there's links to both the 1802 and 1888 editions in the Internet Archive. Both of them have passing mentions of Cook, in reference to geographic coordinates based on his observations. There might be something worth using in there.

@RoySmith: Thanks for the tip ... I'll check it out. Noleander (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

It's good to see a high quality article on this very important figure in the history of the British Empire. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• I think that the length of the article is OK given the importance of the topic and vast range of sources

It's good to hear your opinion on that. I know that WP:SIZERULE offers some latitude: "... though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." My plan is to try to keep the article near the 9,000 count, to forestall the inevitable discussion in the FA review. Noleander (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• That said, there are way too many notes at the end of the article. Half a dozen is a sensible maximum. Some of the current notes are on minor issues (e.g. notes x and ba).

Agree. My plan is to drastically reduce the count before the FA review. At this point in time, the notes are serving a useful purpose: reminders of borderline facts that could potentially be in the body text, size permitting. My plan is to make a pass thru them and move many of them into the appropriate sub-article, aiming to reduce the count to 26 notes (so the notes identifiers span from a to z). I don't know if a half dozen is possible: so many of those notes are of tremendous interest to readers. Noleander (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• "and allegations that he facilitated British colonialism in the Pacific." - I don't think that these are allegations, as it is an established fact that he did this. What's controversial is whether he should be celebrated for his role in expanding the British Empire.

Done. Changed from

He is a controversial figure because of his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and allegations that he facilitated British colonialism in the Pacific.

to

He is a controversial figure due to his sometimes violent encounters with indigenous peoples, transmission of infectious diseases, and the role he played in enabling British colonialism in the Pacific.

I added "infectious diseases" as one component of resolving the related suggestion below: "The article doesn't really address the reasons why commemorations of Cook have become controversial". Noleander (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• "based on the recommendation of Hugh Palliser " - say who Palliser was

Done. Palliser's relationship to Cook is already discussed earlier at James_Cook#Royal_Navy. But since that was way above, I added a footnote at the "based on the recommendation" sentence to remind readers. Noleander (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• The National Maritime Museum in London has several chronometers used by Cook on display; a photo of one of them would be more interesting than the current photo. I suspect that I took some photos when I visited the Museum in 2022 if none are available Commons.

A couple months ago, I sent an email to that museum asking permission to use one of their images (and make it free-to-use within WikiCommons) ... they replied "no". I think licensing photos may be a source of revenue for them based on this: . Their photos of the K1 at are stupendous. If you have a photo of the Larcum Kendall's K1 chronometer, that would be wonderful! Other chronometers would be a dilemma: my gut tells me it is better to have a poor photo of the significant watch, than a great photo of an insignificant (relative to Cook) watch. Noleander (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Regarding a photo of the Larcum Kendall K1 chronometer: I searched in Wiki Commons for a better photo, and I could not find one. Two days ago, I posted a request in Wiki Commons for someone to take a photo of the timepiece ... but that seems like a long shot. (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_requests#Photo_of_Larcum_Kendall_K1_chronometer_(in_Royal_Observatory,_London) You mentioned that you might have a photo of the K1 ... I don't want to bother you, but if you have a photo of the K1, that would be great. Otherwise, I think the black-and-white photo currently used in the article should be acceptable for FA ... it is not too bad. Noleander (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I've checked my photos, and I did take a photo of this device, which I've uploaded at File:K1 chronometer at the National Maritime Museum October 2022.jpg. It's a bit blurry I'm afraid - I didn't have a zoom lens that day and there was also glare on the display case. Sorry for the delay here - I currently have stupid arrangements for accessing the photos I've taken over the years. I also took a photo of the caption, which confirmed that this is the K1 Cook used in his 1772-75 voyage. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading that photograph. I'll cogitate and determine if it's superior to the current photo or not. The current photo has a couple advantages ... it's pretty sharp focus, plus the size of the timepiece is apparent from the hand in the photograph. Noleander (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem. It's definitely not a particularly good photo. It's a real shame that the NMM hasn't released any of its images under a CC license. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• The article doesn't really address the reasons why commemorations of Cook have become controversial - whether he exceeded his orders by claiming Australia and various other places, and whether he should be seen as the spearhead of colonialism or an apolitical explorer. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Okay. We have sources that cover those topics, and some of that material is already in the sub-article James Cook and indigenous peoples. So, it should be an easy matter to add a sentence or two into this article. Noleander (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)