 | An Account of the Voyages has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 23, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
 | A fact from An Account of the Voyages appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 February 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 11:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that
John Hawkesworth was paid £6,000 for his work as editor of his
Account of the Voyages? Source:
Beaglehole 1974, p. 290
- ALT1: ... that the Account of the Voyages by John Hawkesworth was compiled from the journals of John Byron, Samuel Wallis, Philip Carteret, James Cook, and Joseph Banks?
- ALT2: ... that when James Cook came to St Helena in 1775, wheelbarrows were placed near his residence in response to a description in John Hawkesworth's Account of the Voyages?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Antiparallelogram
- Comment: Did you know that Wikipedia did not have an article about the most popular book of 1773 to 1784, according to the lending records of the Bristol Library?
Moved to mainspace by Kusma ( talk). Self-nominated at 10:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC).
-
Hi
Kusma, review follows: article moved to mainspace on 30 January; article is well written and cited inline throughout (with the exception of "Content", which is implicitly cited to the work itself); sources used appear reliable; I didn't find any overly close paraphrasing from sources I checked; hooks are mentioned in the article and check out to the sources cited; I find the wheelbarrow hook the most interesting; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me -
Dumelow (
talk) 15:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:An Account of the Voyages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately tagged; sources are reliable.
Suggest linking "southern continent" to Terra Australis.- Done.
"Mediated by Sandwich, he also was given access to": suggest "Sandwich gave him access to".- Did a slightly different copyedit.
- "flaws were found with Hawkesworth's morals, theology, geography, and with the excessive payment he had received": can we expand on these criticisms? The article is quite short, and the criticism sounds like a significant part of the response to it, but we get almost no details.
- Yes, there could be more details. I have a few sources that go more in depth, but it could be a few days until I can do this justice.
- You say it remained an authoritative source on the voyages for over a century. Do modern sources that refer to it have anything interesting to say about its representations and accuracies or inaccuracies, or its biases, or anything of that sort?
- As I understand it, people interested in the voyages nowadays use the various editions of the original journals instead. But you are right that I should include something about the more recent reception of Hawkesworth.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Mike Christie:, thank you for the review! I will try to address your excellent points as soon as I can, but it could be a week. —
Kusma (
talk) 10:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- No problems with a delay; I'll check back in a week or so.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Mike Christie, I've added some more details and (I hope) answered some of your questions. I hope this is closer to "broad coverage" now, even though it certainly isn't near the FA standard of "comprehensive". —
Kusma (
talk) 23:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good -- before I pass it, looks like there's a template error at the end of the very last sentence? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Mike Christie, I've added some more details and (I hope) answered some of your questions. I hope this is closer to "broad coverage" now, even though it certainly isn't near the FA standard of "comprehensive". —
Kusma (
talk) 23:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- No problems with a delay; I'll check back in a week or so.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
|
| An Account of the Voyages has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 23, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
| This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
| The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
| A fact from An Account of the Voyages appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 February 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| |
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 11:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that
John Hawkesworth was paid £6,000 for his work as editor of his
Account of the Voyages? Source:
Beaglehole 1974, p. 290
- ALT1: ... that the Account of the Voyages by John Hawkesworth was compiled from the journals of John Byron, Samuel Wallis, Philip Carteret, James Cook, and Joseph Banks?
- ALT2: ... that when James Cook came to St Helena in 1775, wheelbarrows were placed near his residence in response to a description in John Hawkesworth's Account of the Voyages?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Antiparallelogram
- Comment: Did you know that Wikipedia did not have an article about the most popular book of 1773 to 1784, according to the lending records of the Bristol Library?
Moved to mainspace by Kusma ( talk). Self-nominated at 10:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC).
-
Hi
Kusma, review follows: article moved to mainspace on 30 January; article is well written and cited inline throughout (with the exception of "Content", which is implicitly cited to the work itself); sources used appear reliable; I didn't find any overly close paraphrasing from sources I checked; hooks are mentioned in the article and check out to the sources cited; I find the wheelbarrow hook the most interesting; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me -
Dumelow (
talk) 15:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:An Account of the Voyages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately tagged; sources are reliable.
Suggest linking "southern continent" to Terra Australis.- Done.
"Mediated by Sandwich, he also was given access to": suggest "Sandwich gave him access to".- Did a slightly different copyedit.
- "flaws were found with Hawkesworth's morals, theology, geography, and with the excessive payment he had received": can we expand on these criticisms? The article is quite short, and the criticism sounds like a significant part of the response to it, but we get almost no details.
- Yes, there could be more details. I have a few sources that go more in depth, but it could be a few days until I can do this justice.
- You say it remained an authoritative source on the voyages for over a century. Do modern sources that refer to it have anything interesting to say about its representations and accuracies or inaccuracies, or its biases, or anything of that sort?
- As I understand it, people interested in the voyages nowadays use the various editions of the original journals instead. But you are right that I should include something about the more recent reception of Hawkesworth.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Mike Christie:, thank you for the review! I will try to address your excellent points as soon as I can, but it could be a week. —
Kusma (
talk) 10:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- No problems with a delay; I'll check back in a week or so.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Mike Christie, I've added some more details and (I hope) answered some of your questions. I hope this is closer to "broad coverage" now, even though it certainly isn't near the FA standard of "comprehensive". —
Kusma (
talk) 23:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good -- before I pass it, looks like there's a template error at the end of the very last sentence? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Mike Christie, I've added some more details and (I hope) answered some of your questions. I hope this is closer to "broad coverage" now, even though it certainly isn't near the FA standard of "comprehensive". —
Kusma (
talk) 23:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- No problems with a delay; I'll check back in a week or so.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)