Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Morgan/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 [1].

Henry Morgan

Nominator(s):
talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I've added, removed and altered those mentioned. Thanks again. All the best,

talk) 22:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for doing that, but in some cases problems persist.
  • File:Henry_Morgan_in_colour.jpg has a tag stating the author is unknown, but the description identifies a named author. Same with File:Captain_Henry_Morgan_attacking_Panama.jpg, File:King_Charles_II_(Lely).jpg
  • No illustrator is named, and neither carry a copyright notice The Morgan in colour was published in 1684 (which pre-dates any copyright statutes); it çan be seen here. This is for the Panama image (first published in 1742).
    talk) 14:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thank you,
    talk) 10:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I thought I'd got them both (This edit for the colour image and this one for the Panama image). Have I missed one of the other images that needs working on? Thanks (and sorry if I'm making a mess of this).
    talk) 08:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • OK - my mistake! I've now addressed that one with this edit. I think that should clear it up, but please let mw know if there are any other steps I should take. All the best,
    talk) 13:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Should now be OK, but please let me know if I've erred. I haven't edited the Pyle image, as this was a US publication and he's a US author. All the best,
    talk) 06:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto

Some comments, mostly on prose:

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There are still a number of instances in the article where we read that such and such an amount of money was equivalent to howevermuch in 2016; I continue to be dubious about this.
I know there are two schools of thought on the use of the conversion, but I think it's useful for readers to give them a frame of reference. -
talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. For a lot of Morgan's life, we don't really know anything, and so the article says, for instance "It is unknown how Morgan made his way to the Caribbean", before giving four separate possibilities. However, in (almost?) all of these cases, no information is given to the reader as to e.g. what scholars think of these various suggestions. In the case of Morgan's travel to the Carribean, each of the four separate possibilities has a different source, three from the 2000s and one from the 1950s. Which is fine as far as it goes. But would it be possible, without straying too far into
    WP:SYNTH
    , to say that scholars have generally sided with x or y when answering this question? (And similarly for other points of uncertainty: are the four examples of people who identify Morgan's father as farmer Robert the only four examples, or are they four of hundreds?)
I think it may cross over to SYNTH to try and put weight onto one over the others. I've scanned over four of the sources and they give their preferred path, but without questioning it. I've tweaked the opening para of the early life section to show the DNB stresses that the early life is lacking in reliable information. –
talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. On the question of sources,
    WP:WIAFA
    specifies that we should look for "high-quality reliable sources" in featured articles. Are sources from 1911 (Barbour), 1932 (Gosse) and 1936 (Cundall) still considered to be "high-quality reliable sources"?
Yes, they are still used as sources by more recent historians (Cundall was a source for the DNB, for example). –
talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Dank for reminding me of this: I'm still not keen on the conversions, but unless anyone else objects I'm not going to push you on that. Happy to support this one for now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on this. If others object to the conversion I'll remove it, but I still think it provides more contextual help than acts as a hinderance. All the best,
talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Harry Mitchell

Ooh, interesting article. I'm rather partial to a Morgan's Spiced and Coke (although it rarely ends at one!). This is very nice work; just a few comments:

Aside from those minor quibbles, this is an excellent article on a fascinating subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you: thank you very much; a very happy new year to you! All the best,

talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by Nick-D

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments on it, of which only the first two are substantive:

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for your input and comments. All the best,
    talk) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

NOTE TO REVIEWERS. If I could ask reviewers to have a brief look at

talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments Support by Iridescent

Version reviewed is this one; as usual, I've intentionally not read anyone else's comments or the talkpage so there may be some duplication.

This looks like a daunting list but they're all relatively minor quibbles. ‑ 

Iridescent 23:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by Wehwalt

Very interesting so far. The usual nitpicks:

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks. All your points addressed in these edits. Thank you so much for taking the time to look over this. All the best,
    talk) 12:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "Santiago, Cuba" maybe just "Santiago de Cuba".
  • "Before a riot between the French and English sailors began" I would change "began" to "could begin".
  • "Morgan announced the plan of attacking Porto Bello" I might say "Morgan announced a plan to attack Porto Bello"
  • "and the murder of their countryman" it was not clear earlier that the man died.
  • "returned to Tortuga.[32] Morgan and his ships returned briefly" returned/returned.
  • "On 11 July 1668 Morgan anchored short of his target and transferred his men to 23 canoes, where they paddled to within three miles (4.8 km) of the target." multiple points. First, target/target. Second, I would say "which" rather than "where"
  • "approached the castle" which?
  • I would separate out the material about the religious people being used as human shields and place it after the account of the taking of the castle, in a separate paragraph, or it may colour the reader's perception of how the castle was taken. Thus, I would move up the final sentence to after the word "quickly", and then separate out the controversial account.
  • "President of Panama" is this an accurate title?
  • "the average salary" I might say "the average annual earnings"
  • "which was the price of Morgan's commission" As you use "commission" shortly thereafter, I would make this "letter of marque". And doesn't this contradict what you earlier said about the privateers being able to keep all booty from land attacks?
  • "Morgan and the captains seated on one side of the table were blown into the water and survived; the flotilla's four captains on the other side of the table were all killed." I would cut "flotilla's"
  • "The French captain knew the approaches for the ships to take, which was through a narrow and shallow channel." "approaches" goes to "was", but "were" doesn't really improve things. Possibly, "The French captain knew the approaches to the lake, through a narrow and shallow channel"
  • "outside the city" Maracaibo or Gibraltar?
  • "ten ships and 800 men" ... "fire the fortress's 11 guns" "20 miles" I'm not sure I understand your practice for rendering numbers as words.
  • Many thanks. All these addressed in these edits. Please let me know if there are any that need re-addressing. All the best,
    talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A few more:

Many thanks

talk) 22:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Excellently done. Yo ho ho and a bottle of ... well, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is excellent news: thank you very much for your time and patience on this. All the best,
    talk) 22:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Citations #141 and 142 say "AFI:Captain Blood" and "AFI:BlackSwan" but I don't see an "AFI" listed as author in the source section?
  • Breaking the sources into "books", "online resources" and "journals and magazines" makes it more difficult to find sources based on the short footnotes (i.e. I have to search three different lists to figure out what "Thomas 2014" is.
  • Footnote #1 is "Britannica: Monmouthshire" but there is no author listed in the sources as "Britannica" ...
  • Footnote #127 is "US Geological Survey" but there is no author listed in the sources as "US Geological Survey"...
  • Footnote #145 is "Diageo history" but the nearest match in sources is "Diageo Company History" - I assume they are the same?
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your review, and congratulations on your recent successful RfA – a good decision reached. For all these sources there is no listed author, so I have tried to provide what I hope is a logical description of the sources below, so AFI is the American Film Institute, Britannica is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc. There is no real need to searching through the lists to find the sources: the hyperlinks for the reference "Britannica: Monmouthshire" will drop down straight onto the relevant source. The division of sources by type is one I have seen in numerous academic works, but in this instance I copied it from a couple of articles I had read on Wiki before,
    talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Ah - I didn't realise that we had to format things for all media viewing. Thank you, I shall remember that for next time. Do you have any suggestions for renaming while retaining the three sections, which I think should be retained? Many thanks. -
    talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thanks, that's great. I'll address that later this evening and ping when it's done. Thanks. -
    talk) 18:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi
    talk) 21:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Coord note

WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll take a look at the weekend if nobody else has got to it by then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
talk) 07:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Source spot check by Laser brain

  • Fn 6 - You present the story of his being sold as a servant as something that "may" have happened, but the source cited says it's "probably untrue", and says Morgan won a libel suit over it. So I don't think you are representing the source correctly.
    • Probably untrue means possibly true. The story of him being sold as a servant is something that is stated as an unquestioned fact in other sources, thus the phrasing here.
  • Fn 6 - I also have a concern about close paraphrasing:
  • Our text: "kidnapped in Bristol and transported to Barbados, where he was sold as a servant."
  • Source text: "kidnapped in Bristol and sold as a servant in Barbados"
  • Our text: "slipped away with the majority of the plunder."
  • Source text: "slipped away ... with the greater part of the plunder"
  • I started checking some citations to Breverton and I have concerns about the reliability of this publication. His works seem scarcely reviewed or not well-reviewed, and the publisher is a small Welsh publisher that focuses on nationalist topics. I don't see much on their web site that instills me with confidence in their editorial or submission standards. Breverton himself has a marketing background and is not an academic or trained historian. What makes this meet
    WP:RS
    in your opinion?
  • He is listed as a source in other works, including:
  • Latimer, Jon (2009). Buccaneers of the Caribbean: How Piracy Forged an Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Thomas, Graham (2014). The Buccaneer King: the Story of Captain Henry Morgan. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Maritime.
  • Winchester, Simon (2011). Atlantic: A Vast Ocean of a Million Stories. London: HarperPress -
    talk) 19:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I'm out of time for right now, but based on my spot checks I think further review is needed for faithfulness to sources, close paraphrasing, and possibly reliability of sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you,
    talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Additional checks:

Comments by SarahSV

Hi The Bounder, I have a question about how you've chosen the sources. The only contemporaneous primary source I can see is Alexandre Exquemelin's The Buccaneers of America (1684). There are other primary sources, but you've cited the secondary sources, rather than citing them directly.

Regarding the secondary sources, which of the book sources are scholarly sources?

Looking at Talty, just as one example—he tells a good story, but he doesn't seem to cite his sources. For example, the article says: "Historians disagree on the value of treasure Morgan collected during his expedition. Talty writes that the figures range from 140,000 to 400,000 pesos, and that owing to the large army Morgan assembled, the prize-per-man was relatively low, causing discontent." Does Talty cite a source for that? Also, he isn't an historian, as the sentence implies, and you don't say who he is on first reference.

Another example: a primary source would be better where you quote Morgan: "we found seventy men had been pressed to go against Jamaica". You use Pope 1978, but it's on Google as originating from a report by Morgan to Thomas Modyford, Jamaica's governor, so that's the source you should try to track down, assuming that's correct. It isn't always possible to find the primary sources, but it's always better to use them if you can, so long as you make sure you're using them as the scholarly sources do. SarahSV (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The applicable policy,
    talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:PRIMARY
cautions against using them badly—don't use them to come up with your own interpretation, for example—but they're often the best sources to use. You have to make sure you're familiar with how the secondary sources use them; the article should be framed by high-quality secondary sources, preferably scholarly sources in an article like this. But there's no point in citing Pope 1978 for a quote from Morgan if you can cite Morgan directly. You'd be surprised at how often the secondary sources get the primary sources wrong.
Talty is a freelance writer, but you've introduced him as an historian. I don't know whether his book is a good source for this. If he doesn't cite his sources, I'd say it isn't, because without sources how do you know that what he's saying is correct? SarahSV (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article sits happily on the right side of the PRIMARY policy. I'd disagree that a lack of citations means it isn't a good source; Pope doesn't use then either, nor do most works aimed at a non-academic readership.
I haven't introduced Talty as a historian, I introduced him further up the page as someone who has written a history of Morgan. In the section in question, I have said historian disagree, which they do. I will tweak the wording to remove the possible implication. –
talk) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a history article, and you would like it to be an FA, which means it needs a high degree of precision and must use the best sources, preferably scholarly sources. Otherwise the article will repeat mistakes and myths that have crept into the non-academic literature about this person. If Talty tells you: "the figures range from 140,000 to 400,000 pesos", you have to know how Talty knows that. SarahSV (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talty contains an extensive bibliography from which the information will have come. The other sources also contain ranges of figures, (and equally long bibliographies); very few of the sources use citations, including the established historians, like Jon Latimer (published by Harvard U Press), Andrew Lycett, etc use inline citations. The best sources have been used, in other words. Let me spin this around: which "scholarly sources" about Morgan are out there that have not been used in this article? -
talk) 17:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I asked above which of the books are scholarly sources. Latimer is one, and he does cite his sources. Are there any others? SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask again: which "scholarly sources" about Morgan are out there that have not been used in this article? -
talk) 18:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no idea. You wrote the article, and you've nominated it for review, so I'm asking which of your sources are the academic ones. SarahSV (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography section is
talk) 18:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - I think SlimVirgin has stated valid concerns here and I've shared my concern above (regarding Breverton) that some of the heavily cited works used here are not scholarly works by historians. I would need more information about how Breverton is cited and whether he is considered by historians to be authoritative before I'm prepared to accept his self-published book as a reliable source. I am also wary of retellings of primary sources especially when they vary and may not have gotten the source material correct. In terms of potentially missing scholarly works, I've done a cursory library search and found some promising writings from the database Welsh Journals Online. Was that database searched while researching the article? --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it was searched. The information from the English language sources does not diverge from the other sources used here. Some of those sources are also rather questionable in the historiography used (stating as fact information that has either been dismissed or heavily questioned in other sources).
    • If she has concerns, then she is free to highlight the sources she finds questionable and adds details of any scholarly sources she thinks may have been missed that would add something different to the information in the article. -
      talk) 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
I've used one quote from Paxman, nothing else. It is, as you have seen and acknowledged, a correct quote used in the right way. If it's that important to you, I'll swap out Paxman for the other source with no other changes needed to the text, meaning or anything else needed. - Jesus, I've not seen anything like this at FAC before, and running through several of the other articles on review, many of then have weaker sources than this without question. These are reliable sources, being used in an appropriate manner, but if you want me to jump through hoops by swapping one source for a different source with no changes to the texts, I'll do that's for the sake of the article, but you can cut the snark for a start. –
talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That wasn't snark. Frohock is a subject-matter expert. He discusses a key primary source that isn't mentioned in your article. My question is why you left it out. You mentioned some primary sources not being reliable, so that was my question.
There are people who've devoted years of their lives to studying this topic and period. To get this article to FA, you need to find those people, and tell us what they say. And also make yourself familiar with the primary sources, so that you can tell us what the scholarly sources say about them too, as Frohock does. For example, when discussing The present state of Jamaica, he talks about the "authority of multiple witnesses, a standard measure of credibility in seventeenth-century evaluations of testimony". That's the kind of discussion that would make this article more interesting and authoritative. SarahSV (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a snarky comment, and unnecessary. You misrepresented what I have said previously, and have repeated the same misrepresentation, despite my clarification. Let me repeat it once again to make sure it gets through: I DID NOT SAY PRIMARY SOURCES ARE UNRELIABLE: I said that ONE source was unreliable (the one that was on the losing end of a libel action. Don't misrepresent me again please. -
talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) Bounder, I don't see anything in SV's remarks that I would remotely consider snark. There's no call for responding that way. Many topics that pass through FAC have straightforward coverage and the scholarly/reliable sources are easy to identify. This is a larger topic that's been the subject of many works, and so we have to endeavor to use the best and most rigorous sources. The goal is the best material for our readers. --Laser brain (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is that a primary source you ruled out because it's unreliable? " is snarky and unnecessary. No need to try and defend it, im I'm unwatchlisting this. Good work everyone. -
    talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

talk) 23:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Coordinator note: I would encourage the nominator to stick with this if possible, having come so far. I'm sure these issues can be sorted out without too much difficulty. Having said that, if you really wish to withdraw this article, it is your decision. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: FYI I attempted to engage the nominator here about this since they said they were unwatching the page but didn't get much traction. I had hoped they would return after cooling off a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. @
The Bounder: just in case you didn't see that message, I'll try a ping! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi guys, FTR, I did see The Bounder's ping to me but preferred to let it ride for a day to see if anything changed. I would still like to give him a chance to respond to Sarastro's ping above before actioning the withdrawal request. Cheers, 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems that significant parts of the article are based on tertiary sources, rather than scholarly sources and the published primary sources. For example, Frohock 2012, pp. 28–32, explains the importance of The Present State of Jamaica (1683). It was the first published account in England of Morgan's expedition, and contains his commission, a letter to him from Governor Modyford, and various depositions, including from Morgan's secretary. But that source is nowhere mentioned in the article.
The Present State of Jamaica, which presents Morgan as part of a process of enlightened imperialism, was contradicted by another key primary source, Alexandre Exquemelin's The Buccaneers of America (1678 in Dutch; 1684 in English), which is cited in the article, but only three times. The Bounder wrote that he regards Exquemelin as unreliable because he lost a libel case, but Frohock, a subject-matter expert, describes Exquemelin "as an independent eyewitness writing critical history", even if some parts are unreliable, and writes that Exquemelin "can prevent a history of violence from being subsumed into larger fictions about civilizing the New World wilderness", an issue this article doesn't mention. Frohock also isn't used as a source. The article needs to mine these sources and say more about the differing accounts.
Anyway, I'm sorry that this input has been so unwelcome. I understand that the FAC process is fraught, but I think the article would be hugely improved with better sourcing. SarahSV (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the FA process is not "fraught", and I have dealt with the comments of eight other reviewers the constructive good faith they have shown me. All I have to say about the Frohock source is that he states that "Morgan [was] arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London": he was never imprisoned in the Tower, as our article makes clear.
Ian, any interest I have in the subject has waned to the point that I no longer wish to take this forward; thanks for holding off for a while, but I think this can now be closed. -
talk) 08:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Henry_Morgan/archive1&oldid=1079645663"