Wikipedia:Peer review/James Cook/archive3

James Cook

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Good Article class. Feedback on prose quality is desired: is the prose professional and encyclopedic? Goal is to have the prose at FA-quality. Which words/sentences/paragraphs need work?

Feedback on other aspects of the article are lower priority (images; manual of style, citations, sources) ... but if you have any input on those, it would be welcome.

Cook is an important historical figure, so if multiple reviewers would like to contribute here as part of the Peer Review, that would be great!

Thanks in advance for your time! Noleander (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexeyevitch

Happy to review. Great work so far, Noleander. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

shop boy → shopboy - common spelling
hauled a spare sail → hauling a spare sail - grammar
Queen Charlotte Sound → Queen Charlotte Sound / Tōtaranui - remove pipe
... dangerous waters of the Torres Strait - uncited
A Māori trading a lobster with Joseph Banks. - appears to be an incorrect title
After a month on the largest island - add Hawaiʻi Island next
... mostly from Polynesia although there... - comma
A statue of James Cook in Victoria, BC, Canada - could be tweaked
enlightened that most of his contemporaries - than?
WP:CITEKILL - might cause clutter
WP:OKINA – would apply
I think "Indigenous" should be consistently captalized.
Also "Nicholas Thomas" leads to a disambiguation page. [Done. Noleander (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)][reply]

Mostly a few minor comments from me. Really strong article. Also good work on the alt texts! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch Thanks for the great suggestions... all valuable & beneficial. I'll update the article later today to resolve all of them. If you ever need a peer review, I'll be happy to do one. Noleander (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the essay WP:CITEKILL, which is a valid concern: many of the sentences have 2 or more cites. In general, those multi-cite sentences are not running afoul of the major concerns listed in WP:CITEKILL, such as editors adding a cite that barely mentions the topic; or adding a cite to promote their cause in an edit war; or trying to create Notability where there is none, etc. The multi-cite sentencess in this article, I believe, are genuinely giving the reader two or three different sources that each have a unique perspective. Some readers may want to read older/denser sources like Beaglehole; other readers may want a more modern source that reflects 21st century sensibilities like Thomas. If we reduced sentences to a single cite maximum, we'd be steering readers to just a single viewpoint. That dilemma is especially pronounced in this article, since there are over 200 biographies of Cook. An alternative solution to the visual clutter is citation bundling (packaging all sources of a given sentence into a single superscript footnote) ... but that has its own drawbacks, primarily that template:sfn cannot be easily used, although template:sfnm is available; and also it means a single source/page cannot be shared across multiple sentences. That said, I'll definitely look at the inline citations and see if they can be trimmed, to reduce the visual clutter. Noleander (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the excellent suggestions. Status update: I've completed all of the above except (1) the "Queen Charlotte Sound" suggestion. I need more guidance, so I posted a query at WP:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Guidance_needed_for_NZ_dual_place_names; and ~~(2) WP:OKINA - Researching this one now.~~. Implmented the WP:OKINA suggestion. Noleander (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad my feedback had been constructive for you! Regarding the citations, I feel like Template:Sfnm might be an option or they can simply be retained. Either way, I think it is best to leave the decision for you. I would apreciate if you would take a look at Dacrydium cupressinum, no pressure at all, but it may be interesting to you. An interesting fact from the article (relevant to James Cook): "In 1773, the British explorer, James Cook, brewed the first native beer at Tamatea / Dusky Sound, extracting the young tips of D. cupressinum's branches, to create what was known as spruce beer". Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

Claiming a spot. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: I am wondering whether a little more should be said here about Cook's achievements as polar explorer (first to cross the Antarctic Circle, and his Farthest South record, tantalisingly close to Antarctica, stood for almost 50 years).
Similarly, Cook's work on scurvy and his FRS/Copley Medal might merit a mention.

Done. Noleander (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand he left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge is perhaps overplaying Cook's contribution to science: much of that was due to Solander and Forster. Certainly Cook's voyages left this legacy, not necessarily the man himself.

Changed to "His voyages left a legacy of scientific ..." Noleander (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early life: I am not fully convinced that the Roseberry Topping story is either important or particularly well sourced. It isn't on p. 15 of the archive.org copy of Collingridge's book.

Done. Removed (it was on pages 16-17, but seems too trivial to mention). Noleander (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether we should not just have an article Early life of James Cook to capture some of the detail and tell more of the stories. —Kusma (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Vanessa Collingridge one of many false titles in the text, usually not particularly well-received in British English.

Done. Eliminated all false titles. Noleander (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a bit more precision in the early merchant ships. Beaglehole has Cook working also on runs to Norway and mentions a few ships.

Added more details of 1752-1755. Noleander (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family: There is a sudden jump of 10 years here. I'm not sure this is the ideal place for the section.

Moved to near bottom. Posted query in Talk page to solicit input from others. Noleander (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow or so! —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada: it could be made clearer that Cook was indeed commanding officer of the Grenville.

Done. Noleander (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First voyage: it could be mentioned that the Royal Society actually preferred Alexander Dalrymple, one of the great proponents of Terra Australis Incognita, to lead the expedition. (I would mention him rather than the shipwright Hayes, but which details to include and which details to leave out is of course a matter of opinion)

Dalrymple and his rejection is mentioned in footnote [j] at end of sentence "... Cook, age 39, was selected by the Admiralty to lead the voyage.".

Before Cook was selected to lead the voyage, the Royal Society (co-sponsor of the expedition) had suggested geographer Alexander Dalrymple as a leader, but Edward Hawke, first Lord of the Admiralty, rejected Dalrymple, reportedly saying he would sooner have his right hand cut off than permit anyone but a King's Officer to command one of the ships of His Majesty's Navy

It is difficult to decide whether to include small details like that in the body text. When there is a subarticle (as for each of the sections covering the three voyages) it is more appropriate to keep tiny details out of the body text. The footnotes are middle ground: available to readers, but not cluttering the body text. Noleander (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gore had actually circumnavigated the world twice already.

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was Banks there as "botanist" or as the Royal Society's general purpose naturalist replacement for Dalrymple? It is two naturalists (Solander and Spöring; Solander was probably the best botanist on board) and two artists (Buchan and Parkinson); I don't think only the servants should be given an exact number. (The servants died at Tierra del Fuego from exposure and Buchan died at Tahiti from epilepsy; Parkinson and Spöring died on the homeward journey).

Done: included specific # of each employee kind. Names of employees were added (in a footnote). Also added Banks' age (25). Did not include deaths of employees ... but that is a tough choice. Again, the existence of a sub-article for first voyage makes it hard to decide what to include in body text, so using footnotes for some details now. May promote to body text later.

Return to England: As far as I know, some of the crew (at least Sydney Parkinson) died from dysentery, not malaria.

Done. Thanks for catching that; it appears all 7 deaths were from dysentery (malaria was only a contributing factor). Noleander (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to know that Cook went to Deal, Kent, after disembarkation?

Done: deleted. Noleander (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A book based on the journals of Cook and Banks of the voyage was published in 1773 I would appreciate a link to An Account of the Voyages, which was not only about Cook's first voyage.

Done: Twice, once in body text; and once in the associated footnote. Noleander (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second voyage: The story about Banks not going on the voyage IMHO belongs in this section, not the previous one. Then you could mention that Forster was his last minute replacement. (I have written about this at A Voyage Round the World and Johann Reinhold Forster).

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More later! —Kusma (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search for Terra Australis: overall, the structure of the voyage (spend southern hemisphere summers in high southern latitudes to find Terra Australis, then the winters in New Zealand or in Polynesia) could be made clearer.

Done. Added sentence in 1st paragr of 2nd voyage section. Sourced to Beaglehole 1974. Noleander (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ice being melted from an iceberg (frozen fresh water) or from sea ice (frozen sea water that becomes less salty while freezing)? It is an important distinction because at the time, people like Samuel Engel and Daines Barrington promoted the belief that sea water could not freeze and hence there must be an Open Polar Sea so navigators staying away from land should be able to sail to the North Pole (it is fun to read the instructions the Navy gave for the 1773 Phipps expedition towards the North Pole).

The ice Cook melted was described by him as "sweet" so it was probably frozen fresh water/snow. I added a footnote (I know, too many of them already ... we can prune them later) with cite to an academic article about Cook's snow/ice experiements. Noleander (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ships become separated: slightly odd heading because they have just become separated in the previous section. Not sure we need so much about Furneaux here.

Agree the section title is confusing. I'll try to think of a better title, or maybe split the subsections somewhere else? It's not obvious how to make it better. Re Furneaux: I agree that the article is about Cook, not Furneaux, but the death of 11 members of Cook's voyage is fairly significant ... I don't see how it can be omitted. Noleander (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Return to England: some more discoveries (for example the South Sandwich Islands) could be mentioned.

Done. Noleander (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are curious, here is Cook's certificate of election to the Royal Society (supported by lots of people including Banks, Solander, Forster, Mulgrave, Maskelyne, ...)

Nice detail! Noleander (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Copley medal citation says "For his Paper, giving an account of the method he had taken to preserve the health of the crew of H.M. Ship the Resolution, during her late voyage round the world. Whose communication to the Society was of such importance to the public." so we have Cook also as an author of a scientific paper, (see also )

Done. Added Cook's article as a source; use it for two cites in body. Noleander (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cook also wrote a book during his stay in England between the second and third voyages. I am in the process of writing an article about the book, but the matter is already covered in some detail in the article about the competing book, A Voyage Round the World.

Done. Added both books (Cook's and Forster's) into Further reading, and added a small sentence into 2nd voyage section mentioning the two books. Noleander (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third voyage: It might be worth noting that there were no properly trained scientists on board. Anderson was a naval surgeon by training.

Clarified that he was a surgeon, and only a part-time/amateur botanist. Noleander (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a footnote about the other NW Passage expedition, why not tell us it was Cook's companion Richard Pickersgill commanding it?

Done. Noleander (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii: the story about Williamson shooting a native is a bit unexpected as footnote to the fact that Sandwich was the First Lord of the Admiralty (why "acting"?). Footnotes should explain the main text, not just add other information.

Done (both "acting"; and promote Williamson footnote into body text). Noleander (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy/Science: The scurvy seems a bit overcited.

Reduced superscript count reduced from 4 to 2 by bundling the cites. A sentence should only have 3 or 4 cites if each cite provides some unique insight that the other cites do not. For this particular "scurvy" sentence, I looked at the cites, and they all seems to have some special details that the others did not. Need to go thru the remainder of the article and examine other clusters of 4 or more cites and delete or bundle the cites. Noleander (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of how Banks is presented as the main scientist here. Indeed he collected a huge amount of things, but most of it was not published for a very long time (the main botanical work, Banks' Florilegium, was finally published between 1980 and 1990). Some of Solander's botany was actually published somewhat clandestinely in Parkinson's A Journal of a Voyage to the South Seas. Forster and his son were far more active in publishing, starting with a lot of botany in Characteres generum plantarum and Forster's main work, Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World, nowadays described as "the beginning of modern geography". He also published scientific descriptions of several species of penguins... Traditional Cook scholarship thinks Forster was a fraud and mostly made fun of him; especially Beaglehole was very influential there. Hough also dismisses Forster at every opportunity, but given that he doesn't even manage spell his name correctly (for some unfathomable reason he calls him "Förster") I do not put any value into anything Hough writes and would generally suggest to look for better sources.

Done. Reworded to Significant observations and discoveries were made by the scientists that Cook carried on each his voyages: naturalists on the first voyage collected over 3,000 plant species; and those on the second voyage published Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World, one of the first works which utilized a modern, interdisciplinary approach to geography. Noleander (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure "the first Europeans to have extensive contact with a large number of peoples in the Pacific" is true; certainly "extensive" and "large number" are needed to ensure the honour does not go to Abel Tasman or even Louis Antoine de Bougainville.

Done. Changed to Cook and Banks were among the first Europeans to have extensive ... Noleander (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Daughters of Eve doesn't seem like a book that should be cited for scientific or historical facts.

Done. Noleander (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote after the 3000 plant species is quite weird, it isn't about plants and would in my opinion rather belong in the section about colonialism.

Done. Noleander (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cook was famous all over the world; I am not convinced that Franklin's opinion is really so important here.

Done. Also removed the adjacent sentence: "Recognition of the scientific benefits of Cook's expeditions extended beyond Britain." ... not a bad sentence, but if we keep it, we'll need a new cite for it. Noleander (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commemorations: I am wondering whether this can be consolidated and shortened a bit overall.

Agree it is oversized, relative to the other sections in the article. It is always tricky removing information that other editors researched and added in years past. I'll post a note in the Talk page soliciting input. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy: the controversy is fairly recent I think, or is any of this pre-20th century?

I don't know if sources specify any controversy(s) events/advocacy pre-2000. I'm not sure if any editors have yet done a thorough search for solid, scholarly sources: if such sources can be found, that would help refine the section lot. I think everyone agrees that the Controversy section needs more work. Noleander (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banks did a lot more to promote colonialism than Cook, who was already long dead when the First Fleet set sail...

Agree. That point relates to the Controversy section where it sheds light on the the degree of Cook's responsibility. Footnote [q] is intended to convey that to readers: "After the first expedition was completed, Joseph Banks promoted Botany Bay (the location of Cook's first landing in Australia) as a candidate for a settlement and British colonial outpost. This led to the establishment of New South Wales as a penal settlement in 1788." Maybe that footnote should be promoted into the body text? Noleander (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Attacks on public monuments to Cook have continued in a number of countries.[253][285][286][287][288][289]" not a fan of news citations for individual incidents to support this.

Agree. The Controversy section is a work in progress. Definitely don't want a long string of cites documenting every single instance of vandalism. Bottom line: we need better sources for that section. Noleander (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the coat of arms really needs its own section; this could go into the Commemorations instead. It seems a rarely used curiosity.

Agree that the coat of arms is large and not especially important. I looked in other articles, and the Coat of Arms always seems to be positioned at the bottom, which makes sense since is so huge, so I don't think it should be moved up at all. I have no objection eliminating it, but probably should post a query on the Talk page first, and get input from WP experts on Coats of Arms to make sure removing it does not run afoul of any WP conventions. Some editors may think that because it is the only coat given posthumously, it should not be deleted. Not sure. Noleander (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: I think there are too many footnotes with things that should either be in the main text or removed.

I agree. However, at this stage of the article's development the Notes serve as a useful intermediate step before permanent removal ... the footnote gives editors some time to weigh if the footnote should go back into the main body text. Footnotes can add vibrancy to an article, and, ultimately, I imagine the total quantity of footnotes will end up being under a few dozen. But it make take a couple of months of pruning to get them down to a manageable level. Conversely, if anyone sees a specific footnote that belongs in the main body text, we can remedy that now. Noleander (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: I am missing The Charts and Coastal Views of Captain Cook's Voyages and The Art of Captain Cook's Voyages. For A Voyage Round the World, I would rather cite the 2000 edition (with all due respect to Robert L. Kahn, the editor of the 1968 edition). Wharton's edition of the Endeavour journal seems to duplicate Beaglehole's.

Done: Noleander (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the moment. Happy to take another look or to join in the fun of editing. —Kusma (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma - Awesome review! So much detail & thought went into it. I'll start implementing these suggestions soon. Noleander (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more general comment: I think the sourcing is acceptable for GA level, but for FA level one should aim to use more varied and recent scholarship. Anne Salmond could be used more for a less Eurocentric view, and it is generally interesting to find out where Beaglehole has been superseded (and at least according to this review , Hough is fairly close to Beaglehole). A major document Beaglehole did not know of is the journal of JR Forster on the second voyage, which was published in 1982. The "art" and "charts and views" books and their reception are also major pieces of post-Beaglehole scholarship. —Kusma (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. In fact I just started reading Salmond's book The Trial of the Cannibal Dog. Other, more recent, authors that could be utilized more are G. Williams and N. Thomas. On the other hand, It should be okay to use some of the older sources for mundane facts e.g. "they stopped in Tahiti on 7 June 1769" or as a source for a quote from Cook's Journal. Noleander (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Older sources including Beaglehole are usually fine for these simple facts, but we want more recent scholarship for their interpretation and the debate surrounding them. —Kusma (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LCP

"several violent encounters with indigenous peoples"

I am left confused as a reader what caused these conflicts, what do the sources say caused them, what policies or actions did Cook take or imposed on his ship that were related to these deaths. At least this section appears to be unclear. given its controversial my feeling is the text should at least be complete and accurate.

The rest of the section may? I am unsure tend to focus on citing critical voices and the mainstream or at least the contested older perspective, doesn't appear to be given much consideration.

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iph-2018-0021/html

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/ten-crew-of-cooks-ship-em-adventure-em-killed-and-eaten

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13688790.2017.1408175

https://www.captaincooksociety.com/remembering-cook/books/book-reviews/the-compassion-of-captain-cook-christopher-heathcote-2023

Christopher heathcote's book, in particular, focuses on the forgiveness of a Maori chief after the killing of 10 of Cook's men -> contrasted against the societal expectation from Cook's own crew to seek retribution. The events are covered reasonably well in lit - with the second reference also being on this event and the NZ history link.

Separately, you have this;

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1969.0005 - albeit older paper focused on Cook's scientific contributions.

And probably a lot more! I raise this really to just try and help balance the section.

LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeChatiliers Pupper Thanks for the feedback. You wrote I am left confused as a reader what caused these conflicts, what do the sources say caused them, what policies or actions did Cook take or imposed on his ship that were related to these deaths. At least this section appears to be unclear. given its controversial my feeling is the text should at least be complete and accurate. ... which is spot on: the Controversy section is the section that needs the most work, so your input is really useful. I've just started, myself, looking for solid academic sources related to this section, so the additional sources you named will add to that list. Thanks again. Noleander (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: bottommost link from LCP is Deacon, G. E. R.; Deacon, Margaret (1969). "Captain Cook as a Navigator". Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London. 24 (1): 33–42. doi:10.1098/rsnr.1969.0005. ISSN 0035-9149. JSTOR 530739. S2CID 145011452. Noleander (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]