Prince of Wales (1786 ship) has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology 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: January 5, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
Prince of Wales (1786 ship) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Prince of Wales (1786 ship) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 October 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Given all the ships at HMS Prince of Wales, perhaps the title should be Prince of Wales (1786 ship)? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)b
Congratulations on a DYK! Amandajm ( talk) 13:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a ship)&diff=623829223&oldid=608695836 disagreement over the number of male prisoners brought aboard Prince of Wales in May 1787 after the Scarborough mutiny. I have restored the number to two, based on the source in the article, which relevantly reads -
That seems pretty clear. I note there is always scope for some dispute on numbers with the First Fleet, given there is not even an entirely reliable record of the total number of transportees. However we have a scholarly source for two males brought aboard after the mutiny - if there's a case to be put for one it would be great if a source was provided, so that we would discuss it further here. Euryalus ( talk) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote to the, ahem, disambiguation page listing all the Royal Navy ships of this name. It occurs to me that the name of this article should most likely be changed - perhaps it might be Prince of Wales (Australian ship) or something of that sort. The current name seems to me to be somewhat misleading. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I read this article and found some areas that feel more like research notes than a Wikipedia article (especially "Origins" and remarks about surprise that it is or is not in Lloyd's register further down). These appear to be sections that have been added or modified significantly since it was promoted to GA. Could someone familiar with either the topic or the GA criteria please have a look at it? Pinging major contributors: @ Euryalus, Ealdgyth, and Acad Ronin:. Thank you. -- Scott Davis Talk 01:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
To kick off the Review, I've brought the following paragraph here for discussion:
It is possible to reconcile these accounts somewhat. There is no mention of Prince of Wales in Lloyd's Register until 1787, when she appears in the supplemental pages as being of 300 tons (bm), launched in 1779 at Sidmouth, with master J. Mason, and owner John Mather. The reconciliation between the two origins may rest in the notation that she had been almost totally rebuilt in 1786. [1] It is therefore quite reasonable to suppose that she was launched at Sidmouth in 1779 and rebuilt at Rotherhithe in 1786.
The conclusion seems reasonable, but it seems to be based on an interpretation of likelihood, and not a direct secondary source. Absent a secondary source reconciling the two accounts, suggest we may have to leave both accounts in the article but without an explanation for why they differ. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Lloyd's Register is a reliable source. It records that a contemporaneous vessel in Mather's ownership was renamed from Prince of Wales to Hannibal.
The text in question: Renamed to Hannibal?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The entry in Lloyd's Register, however, adds further confusion of a different sort. It reports that in 1786 Prince of Wales had been named Hannibal. The situation is more complex than that. If one works back from 1787, the only thing that is clear is that vessels have been bought, disposed of, and renamed.
What appears to have occurred is a mixing of records and a confusion of names. One may conjecture that one vessel was the South Carolina-built slaver Heart of Oak, launched in 1762, repaired in 1784, of 310 tons (bm), and renamed Hannibal in 1786. [Note 1] The other was the West Indiaman Hannibal, Sidmouth-built, launched in 1779, not yet rebuilt, and of 300 tons (bm), and eventually renamed Prince of Wales. Unfortunately, Lloyd's Register for 1785 is not readily available on-line. [Note 2] Furthermore, in 1784, although J. Mather apparently owned 17 vessels, including Heart of Oak, none was built in Sidmouth in 1779. Nor is there any other vessel listed built in Sidmouth in 1779. Full resolution of the issue may have to await primary research. |
Questions:
Opinions(all other views extremely welcome):
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince of Wales (1786 ship). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).
Prince of Wales (1786 ship) has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology 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: January 5, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
Prince of Wales (1786 ship) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Prince of Wales (1786 ship) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 October 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Given all the ships at HMS Prince of Wales, perhaps the title should be Prince of Wales (1786 ship)? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)b
Congratulations on a DYK! Amandajm ( talk) 13:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a ship)&diff=623829223&oldid=608695836 disagreement over the number of male prisoners brought aboard Prince of Wales in May 1787 after the Scarborough mutiny. I have restored the number to two, based on the source in the article, which relevantly reads -
That seems pretty clear. I note there is always scope for some dispute on numbers with the First Fleet, given there is not even an entirely reliable record of the total number of transportees. However we have a scholarly source for two males brought aboard after the mutiny - if there's a case to be put for one it would be great if a source was provided, so that we would discuss it further here. Euryalus ( talk) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote to the, ahem, disambiguation page listing all the Royal Navy ships of this name. It occurs to me that the name of this article should most likely be changed - perhaps it might be Prince of Wales (Australian ship) or something of that sort. The current name seems to me to be somewhat misleading. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I read this article and found some areas that feel more like research notes than a Wikipedia article (especially "Origins" and remarks about surprise that it is or is not in Lloyd's register further down). These appear to be sections that have been added or modified significantly since it was promoted to GA. Could someone familiar with either the topic or the GA criteria please have a look at it? Pinging major contributors: @ Euryalus, Ealdgyth, and Acad Ronin:. Thank you. -- Scott Davis Talk 01:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
To kick off the Review, I've brought the following paragraph here for discussion:
It is possible to reconcile these accounts somewhat. There is no mention of Prince of Wales in Lloyd's Register until 1787, when she appears in the supplemental pages as being of 300 tons (bm), launched in 1779 at Sidmouth, with master J. Mason, and owner John Mather. The reconciliation between the two origins may rest in the notation that she had been almost totally rebuilt in 1786. [1] It is therefore quite reasonable to suppose that she was launched at Sidmouth in 1779 and rebuilt at Rotherhithe in 1786.
The conclusion seems reasonable, but it seems to be based on an interpretation of likelihood, and not a direct secondary source. Absent a secondary source reconciling the two accounts, suggest we may have to leave both accounts in the article but without an explanation for why they differ. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Lloyd's Register is a reliable source. It records that a contemporaneous vessel in Mather's ownership was renamed from Prince of Wales to Hannibal.
The text in question: Renamed to Hannibal?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The entry in Lloyd's Register, however, adds further confusion of a different sort. It reports that in 1786 Prince of Wales had been named Hannibal. The situation is more complex than that. If one works back from 1787, the only thing that is clear is that vessels have been bought, disposed of, and renamed.
What appears to have occurred is a mixing of records and a confusion of names. One may conjecture that one vessel was the South Carolina-built slaver Heart of Oak, launched in 1762, repaired in 1784, of 310 tons (bm), and renamed Hannibal in 1786. [Note 1] The other was the West Indiaman Hannibal, Sidmouth-built, launched in 1779, not yet rebuilt, and of 300 tons (bm), and eventually renamed Prince of Wales. Unfortunately, Lloyd's Register for 1785 is not readily available on-line. [Note 2] Furthermore, in 1784, although J. Mather apparently owned 17 vessels, including Heart of Oak, none was built in Sidmouth in 1779. Nor is there any other vessel listed built in Sidmouth in 1779. Full resolution of the issue may have to await primary research. |
Questions:
Opinions(all other views extremely welcome):
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince of Wales (1786 ship). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).