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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:48, 22 April 2010 [1].

Blackbeard[edit]

Blackbeard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Everyone has heard of the archetypal pirate Blackbeard. How many of you have heard that he was killed on the orders of the Governor of Virginia, who was acting unlawfully? And how many of you knew that Blackbeard (as far as we know) never injured or killed any of those he held captive? There's probably a little more to be said of the modern image of the man, but hopefully you'll find this article entertaining and informative enough. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Fixed two dab links; no dead externals. There's no alt text, but WP:ALT is no longer an FA requirement or a guideline (for now at least), so... --an odd name 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "After successfully ransoming the port's inhabitants, he ran his ship aground and with a small crew accepted a royal pardon." this sentence in the lead looks wrong to me.
    Removed "with a small crew". Parrot of Doom 22:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "and thus born in about 1680" also sound a bit weird. Perhaps change to "and thus born in c. 1680" or something similar? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the wording as it is. Circa is ok for abbreviations, but its a synonym for "about" anyway. Parrot of Doom 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The two captains spent several nights on the southern tip of Ocracoke Island, accompanied by such celebrities as Israel Hands, Robert Deal, and Calico Jack." although not wrong, celebrities could perhaps be rephrased? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd agree, however, the word "celebrity" is the same word used by the source, and I think it therefore appropriate to use. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, then it does make it more appropriate. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far, although a few comments still outstanding.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I am now ready to support this fine article in its FAC. Great work, well done!--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other historians have suggested that his surname was Drummond, but the lack of any supporting documentation makes this unlikely." - who and why?
  • Unknown, the sources don't speculate beyond "early claim". I've changed to "One early claim was that..." Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 17th-century rise of England's American colonies" - in what way did they "rise"?
Establishment, expansion, etc. I used that word to avoid repetition with "expansion" in the following "slave trade" phrase.
I think it could be more clearly expressed, but it is no longer a condition of my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He may therefore have been born into a respectable, wealthy family.[5] He may have arrived in the Caribbean in the last years of the 17th century, on a merchant vessel (possibly a slave ship)." - who posits these theories?
The sources provided, but they only summarise, they don't go into detail. Most of this is speculation and guesswork on the part of all authors. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be clearer if you named the sources as you do further down the article, given that this seems to be little more than speculation by the authors.
Ok, how about this? I'm reasonably sure that Lee is now dead, as I found a 1996 magazine entry about Blackbeard which mentioned that at the time he was in his 80s and in failing health. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better (and don't worry about the tense, even if he is alive the speculation was still in the past).--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The West Indies was the setting for a great many maritime incidents during the 17th and 18th centuries" - this is very vague. Since the rest of the section discusses pirates, then perhaps relate this sentance to that topic more directly.
  • I'm not sure that this would be entirely appropriate. There is, as the article says, a great deal of history. There's far too much piratical activity to expand upon, and I think a general "piracy in the west indies" article would be more suited to this. There isn't just piracy either; shipwrecks, war, etc. Really the sentence just sets up for the reader the idea that the shipping in the West Indies was a pretty busy at that time, and that it wasn't some "newly-discovered backwater".
I understand the point now that you have explained it, but I didn't from the article and I still think it is vague. Perhaps "The West Indies was an important maritime centre during . . ." or similar?
I've added this line. Note - this addition isn't given an explicit reference, but certainly the piratical aspect is covered in the same paragraph, as is the busy shipping lanes in the area. I don't think its objectionable that the area had a history of colonialism. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dispute from me, that reads much better--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island then was not the popular tourist destination it is now" - "it is now" dates the text, perhaps use "it later became" instead.
  • "may at this time have been struggling to control their crews, as on 29 September near Cape Charles all they took from the Betty of Virginia was her cargo of Madeira wine, before they scuttled her with the remaining nonpotable cargo" - "Crews" should probably be singular. There is also a logical link missing here - why does this indicate that the crew eere out of control (maybe they just didn't have room for the less valuable cargo)?
  • Each ship had its own captain, regardless of who had overall command, so crews is more suitable. Again what exactly was happening is vague, but it seems as though Hornigold had by then left, and Teach was left with two ships. The implication with the Betty is that the crews took only the wine, to get drunk, and ignored everything else that couldn't be poured down their gullets. Would a footnote suffice? Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote would probably help here as I don't think the article is clear on this point at the moment. I hadn't realised that the quartermaster was on a different ship - did I miss something explaining this earlier?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll have to be vague here. Nobody really knows exactly when Hornigold parted company. Its all guesswork and speculation, which is why I gave him his own paragraph to leave in. He may have been present, he may not - William Howard may have been commander, or he may not. I've therefore added a note, but haven't cited it - Konstam is the more detailed source on these matters, but again he's speculating (whereas Lee tends to follow Charles Johnson's account a little too closely sometimes). An explicit citation would probably need a while for me to conjure up. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote helps a bit, but I'm still not sure where the logical link lies between the crew being out of control and the cargo being burnt. Is there anything you can do to make this clearer?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The implication here is that they just wanted to get pissed, and sod everything and everyone else :) This is in the source. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boat was quickly stopped" - Its too big to be a boat, "vessel" would be a better term here.
  • "The offer was open to all pirates who surrendered on or before" - what offer? This is the first time it is mentioned in this section and needs to be explained.
  • Offer of a royal pardon - sorted this out, thanks. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Konstam (2007) proposes a similar idea" - No need for the date, and give Konstam's full name a a brief introduction (i.e. "Historian Angus Konstam says")
  • This is just a style thing for me, Konstam has written several books about piracy and I think its easier for the reader to know the year his claims were made. For example, Johnson's claims were made in 1724 - that's a big disparity. Konstam is, however, already mentioned in full on the first instance. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I leave it up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accompanied by such celebrities as" - better phrased as "accompanied by such celebrated pirates as"
  • Celebrity/celebrities is the word used in the source, and I think its appropriate to stick with it. Normally I'd agree with you though. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As before, I leave this to you and it won't affect my support, but maybe you can incorporate it in a quote instead - it looks odd to me as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "notorious figures". Parrot of Doom 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found in Tobias Knight's barn, for £2,238." - Can you use the converter to give this figure in 2010 values as well?
  • I did think about this but I've used the calculator on a few FACs in the past, and its always raised objections. There are several methods of calculating value over time and I'm not expert enough to know which is best. The differences can be significant. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything there that dissuades me against it, but its not vital for my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "came from the king" - When a specific king is referred to (in this case George I), then the word king is a proper noun and should be capitalised.
  • "Lee (1974) concludes" - As before, no need for the date and give the full name - this appears again further down the page.
  • "was finally replaced once" - by whom?
  • Are "tutelary saints" in anyway related to "Tutelary deity"? If so, then link them.
  • I'm not convinced that the Tutelary deity article is sufficient enough to give the reader any understanding of the phrase, at the moment if a reader clicked on that, they might presume that some thought that pirates were Gods. Tutelary saints are more akin to patrons than Gods. I wonder if Patron saint would be better? Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, because I'm not certain in exactly what sense the article is using it - I'd not heard the term before and thought a link might make it clearer. If you think patron saints is better then go for it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, think of the way that the undertaker from The Godfather might have thought of Vito Corleone. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now (nice analogy), I just think a link here would explain it more immediately.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to patron. Its a bit less colourful and probably more to the point. Parrot of Doom 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an estimated five times what Teach did" - not very encyclopedic, try "an estimated five times the amount that Teach did"
  • Done, although slightly differently to your suggestion. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Various stories of Teach's ghost exist, spread by the credulous" - I don't believe in ghosts either, but there is no need to be condescending, can you rephrase this?
  • There was a fair bit of piss-taking in the 18th century regarding the credulous (mostly the Methodists). I think given the time frame here, the word is appropriate. After all, we're not talking so much of people who think that ghosts exist, more of people who think that a headless corpse was capable of doing a few laps of a boat, looking for its head. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(editconflict) Perhaps this can be incorporated into a quote and slightly expanded? Some of the information you mention in your reply does not appear in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about adding the swimming around the boat bit, but it isn't that important a part of the story (although I'd not object to including it). There are other legends, his skull becoming a chalice, his supposed house, buried treasure, hauntings, ghostly lights, etc. I thought the important aspect of the story was his exploits, and his effect on the local area - he was a very big pain in the backside for many governors in British America. I'm happy with "credulous" as a description of folk who believe in such things. Have a look at some of William Hogarth's artistic commentaries on credulity, such as Cock Lane ghost or Mary Toft. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with this as an unexplained term: it would appear much better as part of a quote - who said the word originally?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lee, p174. Its already cited. Check out the OED entry for credulity - "Belief, faith, credence; the quality of being a believer; readiness to believe. Obs.", "Over-readiness to believe; disposition to believe on weak or insufficient grounds." I think its entirely correct to separate fact from fiction, and credulity is the perfect word, especially given popular beliefs at that time. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for a citation, but for a quote so that you can include the word without it looking unencyclopedic. Although I am not particularly happy with this remaining as it is, I think on balance I won't let it get in the way of my support at this time if you feel so strongly about it. I would recommend you think about alternatives however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about this? Parrot of Doom 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an improvement. Good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Jackyd101 here. If it can be rephrased it should. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost exploded in a puff of feathers when I read the "Cultural influences" bit... :) I'm happy with your edits, they make sense to me. As for commas I tend not to follow any particular rules, I read things to myself and see how they sound. Sometimes a breath or two is needed after a long section, I think. Parrot of Doom 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this article last night, its very fascinating. I do have just a couple comments though.

  • The same citation covers the entire paragraph, it'd just be two citations that link to the same place, a bit scruffy I think. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice article with nice images. I think the caption for the image of the head hanging from the bowsprit needs punctuation (a full stop?). If not, please disregard. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing punctuation is required only when the caption us a full sentence ("Teach's flag depicted a skeleton spearing a heart, while toasting the devil. Flying such a flag was designed to intimidate one's enemies.") No period if it isn't ("Capture of the Pirate, Blackbeard, 1718, Jean Leon Gerome Ferris"). The caption for the severed head is one of the latter, IMO. Steve T • C 07:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More