Jump to content

Talk:Arniston (East Indiaman)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Arniston (ship))
Good articleArniston (East Indiaman) has been listed as one of the History 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 11, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the resort town Arniston, Western Cape near Cape Agulhas, the southern-most tip of Africa, was named after Arniston, an East Indiaman that shipwrecked in the vicinity in 1815?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 30, 2010, May 30, 2011, May 30, 2015, May 30, 2017, and May 30, 2018.

Benecoolen Battle

[edit]

The Arniston is mentioned in an engagement with a French ship at Benecoolen during one of the three voyages under Captain Majoribanks. See History of Merchant Shipping and Ancient Commerce (Full text of the source is not available online). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Swastry

[edit]

There's no such name in the language - this is a Anglicization of an Afrikaans name that's gone horribly wrong. His name was "Jan Zwartz" or possibly the more modern "Jan Swart". "John Swastry" is absolutely wrong, even if from a published source. Socrates2008 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, but we can't just delete this point and let the reader or scholar wonder why he finds "John Swastry". In such case, we have to provide at least some narrative explanation in the endnote so as to tie up the loose ends, such as:
The farmer's son probably had the Afrikaans name "Jan Zwartz" or perhaps "Jan Swart". The earliest report consulted gave him for a "John Swastry" (AJ 1816:34), but this seems an Anglicization or phonetic corruption of an oral account. A later report name him "Jan Zwartz" (George Thompson, 1827, Travels and Adventures in Southern Africa, 2nd edition, Vol. 2, p. 405, quoting the account of survivor C. S. Scott in a version slightly different from AJ 1816:34). Later again, we have him as "young Schwartz" (Raikes 1846:527).
Sure, it's longer, but I think it sets the score right and doesn't leave the reader wondering why he finds contradictory information in the earliest source we give him. — Komusou talk @ 10:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Socrates2008 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Anyone else notice that the date on the memorial is wrong? (3 May instead of 30 May) Socrates2008 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

[edit]

Coverage of the "Wreck" and "Aftermath" is good, but more basic information about the ship, its captains, and voyages needs to be included.

For example, the Overview section should present the dimensions of the ship and a general description of a "Royal Navy fourth-rate ship of the line", so readers know what type of ship we are talking about. An image would also help.

The Voyages section should include basic information on each of the different captains and, where possible, discuss more notable incidents.

Also, I'm not clear if the lack of chronometer was a problem since the ship was built or just for the last voyage. Were there any previous incidents where the ship was unable to determine its position? How was it possible to operate a ship for so many years without basic instrumentation?

Also, the lead section should be expanded to at least two paragraphs.

I'm putting this article on hold as the article is close to meeting the GA criteria, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - will try to address these issues ASAP. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more information could be found in any of the sources about the captains, however I've added some information about a previous incident when the ship struck an uncharted rock near Sumatra.

Ship's dimensions and general description of a "ship of the line" have been added as suggested. There are no pictures available of the Arnistion, copyright or otherwise, so I've added one of a comparable ship from the same era.

Having a chronometer then was like having GPS today - i.e. you can navigate without it, but it's much harder to fix your position, navigation is less accurate, and fixes can't be obtained as frequently. The article on history of longitude does a very good job of explaining the issues that were solved by having a chronometer, so I've linked it in.

Lastly, the lead section has been expanded to 2 paragraphs. I hope this addresses all your points - please me know if this is not the case.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thank you. GA awarded. Johnfos (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, also for doing this so promptly. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions

[edit]

1) the cost of a chronometer was about £60 - 100. How much would a ship have cost in those days? I only ask because the Chronometer article says the £10k prize of the longitude board was worth several million in today's money. If we say 10 million then a chronometer would cost about £100K. 2) Wreck (1815), para 5. ". The anchors were unable to hold the heavy ship in the storm, so on 30 May near 4 pm, Lieutenant Brice advised Captain Simpson to ground the ship in order to save the lives of those aboard.[2] Eight minutes later, at about 8 pm, the ship struck rocks half a mile offshore and heeled into the wind." This doesn't make sense, 4pm + 8 minutes is 4:08. 4pm + 8 hours is 12pm. What was intended here? Op47 (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Waenhuiskrans or Arniston as it is also known is east from Cape Agulhus and not west thus it cannot be correct that they saw Cape Agulhas and sailed west before turning north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.42.165 (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arniston (East Indiaman). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arniston_(East_Indiaman)&oldid=1205354221"