Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Kognos (talk · contribs) 22:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see this here. I can't possibly not review this (I love 18th century exploration), but it may take a little while. —Kusma (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

• Lead seems on the short side. Will comment more about that later.
• MOS:POSTNOM currently prefers the "FRS" to be just in the infobox, but this might change.
• I assume the birthday is the Julian date?
• Early life and career 1737–1758: perhaps you could say a little more about his family background. (Like that his father was an MP).
• His father died in 1751 that is what the DNB says (convenience link), but the source you give for this paragraph has him dying in 1750 (but that may just be because in England, the date was in February 1750 while in Scotland it was February 1751). An 1808 source is generally not so great; I am sure there are newer sources for most of this information. (Fry also says the father died in 1750).
• Through his friendship with Wilson Dalrymple became a comma after Wilson would make this much clearer.
• Off the north-west coast of New Guinea, Wilson passed through a channel he named the Pitt Strait. no source given
• More precise page numbers for Fry than the chapters would be helpful.

More some other time! —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Voyages in Cuddalore and London 1758–1765: Lord Pigot, the Governor governor of what? Also be mindful of MOS:JOBTITLES to check for the most recent lowercasing rules
• casuatties typo?
• I don't quite understand the voyage of the Cuddalore. They are in Malacca, have to wait for supplies, and during this time they make a huge excursion to north of the Philippines, 2000km to the East, then on to Macao? Or did they wait for the supplies and then start this voyage?
• Dalrymple sent his observations directly to William Pitt, Secretary of State presumably he needed to get to some British trading post first?
• Dalrymple was asked to assist a convoy of five ships on an alternative route who asked him to do that? And was this now a trade voyage instead one of discovery?
• the Sapy (Sape) Strait I think you could just say "Sape Strait" and only say "Sapy" with a gloss when you directly quote Dalrymple.
• A modern map showing the voyage route would help immensely with picturing what they did.
• The Sulu rulers remain quite nameless here; do we not know the names?
• he took the opportunity to determine the Longitude of Sulu using the satellites of Jupiter why uppercase Longitude? do we know how accurate he was?
• James Rennell might like a comma
• a quadrant for the latitudes for determining the latitude?
• the governor of the Spanish fortress Don Manuel Galves, who he described as -> "the governor of the Spanish fortress, Don Manuel Galves, whom he described as"
• governer -> governor
• The Cuddalore now made passage back to India, surveying the west coast of Palawan and the Anamba and Natuna Islands on the return journey, arriving back in Madras I really need a map to understand this.
• Dalrymple followed this up with a voyage in the London. I assume somebody asked him to go and paid for it? It sounds as if it was his private voyage.
• considering alternative possibilities for a trading location alternatives to what?
• Towards the end of the Seven Years' War British forces had captured Manila from the Spanish in a short siege this could perhaps be clarified; the end of the Seven Years' War was in 1763 but the British occupation of Manila did not last very long.
• Are the elderly sultan of Sulu and Sultan Alimuddin I. different people?
• Both the geography and the history here are fairly complicated (and quite unfamiliar to me).
• Dalrymple then sailed to China, arriving in Canton November 1764, and then back to London were these trade or exploration journeys and was Dalrymple the commander?

Taking another break here. —Kusma (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• London and Madras 1765–1779: This section seems exceedingly long and would benefit from further structuring. Dalrymple's Account, the Transit of Venus expedition, and Hawkesworth all would merit at least a subheading.
• He found that there had been a change in personnel, and the new administration was much less enthusuastic about his plans for expanding the Company's trade the East India Company's administration or the UK government? typo for "enthusiastic".
• published in 1769, but printed in 1767 and privately circulated do we know how widely it was circulated? was it the same printing?
• The tense in the description of Dalrymple's book is not consistent.
• This collection of descriptions and translations of accounts of Spanish and dutch voyages in effect replaces Part 2 of the Account, which was never published in that form, providing the detailed evidence on which the summaries in Part 1 are based. Spanish and Dutch. I do not understand the story about Parts 1 and 2 of the Account; so far you have told us that one book was published, not what its parts were.
• Is there a reason why you do not link to An Account of the Voyages? (And do you have suggestions how to improve that article? It is on my list of things to expand, but my list is too long)
• In 1775 Dalrymple was appointed a member of the Madras Council What is the Madras Council?
• Looking at Phillimore 1945, it appears that not only was Pigot arrested, but Dalrymple "suspended". This could merit some further investigation.
• Why is there no discussion of Dalrymple's plans to return to Balambangan? This seems to have been quite a big thing (I know about it because it made Johann Reinhold Forster return to London). Generally the extent of Dalrymple's involvement in the EIC could be clarified here (as well as his financial position; the biographical sketch in Andrew Cook's thesis seems helpful here, but there are probably better sources out there).
• Hydrographer 1779–1808: no citation for the Royal Swedish Academy.
• Is there more to say about his death and legacy?
• in Pl. Coromandel Vol.3 on page 76 in 1820 I think this kind of info would fit better in a citation footnote.

Will look at sources and GA criteria next, but not today. —Kusma (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1283275098

• 1: why do you put 1737 when the source you cite has 1736? (1737 is also what ODNB has, so it is probably better). Perhaps say that Philimore claims 1736 based on "certificate with WP.", whatever that is?
• 2b: can't see any of this information in the source, could you clarify?
• 2c: can't see anything about Pigot's death in the source
• 3: can't see travelling to London here; see also above for the question of the father's year of death
• 4 and 9 are the same book, is it worth separating into two different footnotes?
• 4a: page numbers would be nice. I can't find Orme and the library in this source.
• 4c/5b: this is a quite long paragraph; it would be easier to verify with end-of-sentence citations.
• 10: this is a multi-volume work it seems? without volume and page number this citation is unverifiable
• 11, 12: page numbers?
• 13: looks ok, but the following sentence has no citations
• 14: the source says that Dalrymple bought two volumes of Colbert's collection including many manuscripts, but there is no mention of continuing his work on historical voyages, or on the occupation of Manila.
• 15: ok. It is pretty cool that Dalrymple was actually successful doing geography by studying old books, unlike many of his contemporaries (I recently worked on Samuel Engel).

A bit of a mixed bag so far. I'll do a few more soon. —Kusma (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 16b: fine. You probably should use one of the {{typo}} or similar templates to avoid the typo fixers changing this original quote (or deliberately update the spelling).
• 16d does not contain any information about the location of Antarctica or the 19th century.
• 17: couldn't access. I'm sure this is true, but is this citation strong enough to say it in wikivoice?
• 20: link does not go to the right place ("Spatiotemporal neural correlates of confidence in perceptual decision making"). Seems to be https://theses.gla.ac.uk/8601/ ? The page range is a bit long and the content is mildly WP:SYNTH if it is your conclusion after reading these 80 pages.

I will stop here. There is a lot of text that is not verified by the citations given, which is not OK in a GA. —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Many prose issues, see above.
• Sectioning is not sufficient
• Reference formatting is mostly OK according to the (not very high) standards at GA, although it isn't clear whether any of the "sources" are actually used. Sometimes page ranges are too wide.
• Source quality is mostly fine, although sometimes 18th/19th century sources are used where probably newer scholarly sources exist.
• There are uncited parts and others not supported by the sources.
• Could not find copyvio issues.
• The story of Dalrymple's early 1770s Balambangan expedition seems to be wholly missing.
• For the things where detail is given, the amount seems fine.
• Reads neutral overall.
• Images:
  • File:Alexander Dalrymple SLNSW FL8779231.jpg: do you have evidence it was published before 1930 and that it originates in Australia?
  • File:Alexander Dalrymple by William Daniell, 1802, Royal Scottish Museum.jpg is mis-licensed; the license claims it was created by the uploader (or the uploader is a time traveller)
  • Maps are all fine.
  • Captions are OK, but lead image could credit the artist and/or engraver
• Overall this should probably be a fail because of statements not supported by the sources, but if you are willing to work on that I can put this on hold for a while. —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the review. I will certainly work on this. Some of the points are straightforward, but others will need a bit more background work. Kognos (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess the most important issue is to check all of the citations whether they support all of the text that comes before them (I only checked some; I would expect there are further issues after ref 20). While doing that you can rework the other prose issues. Let me know if you have any questions or if you would like me to look for additional sources. —Kusma (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kusma: I have been working on the article in the light of your suggestions. I have lengthened the intro section; included several maps which I hope make things clearer; and added a Legacy section. I have also checked that the citations are accurate and appropriate. I have removed most of the items from the Sources section, as they are now adequately covered by inline citations. The Sources section now lists just the two most important modern references, which I think need highlighting. I will respond in detail to your comments once I have done a final check, but I think the bio has reached a point where it is worth you taking another look. Thanks for all your input, which has been really useful. Kognos (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kusma: Some more detailed comments:

  • You raise queries on the two portraits of Dalrymple. These were in the bio before I started editing, and I have to admit that I didn't pay any attention to the details. The Brown/Blood portrait did not originate in Australia, it is from an Australian library collection. The item description links directly to the State Library of New South Wales website, and I don't see any reason to doubt the information there. It does request acknowledgement of the Dixson Library, and I have added that request to the item metadata. The Dance/Daniell portrait is, as you say, mislicensed. I have found an alternative image of this engraving from the collection published in 1809, which is on the Internet Archive (scanned to their usual high quality by Getty) and free of copyright. I have uploaded this to Commons and substituted it for the dubious image. Should the dubious (time-traveller) image be recommended for deletion from Commons or can the license info be changed to something valid?

    I have added subsection headings to the London and Madras section.

    I can find no source for Dalrymple's membership of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Again, this was in the bio before I started editing. Is a cn tag OK or should this be deleted?

    I do not share your reservations about old references. Modern authors may do original research in the archives, or compare a number of older sources, thus adding value. But often they simply cite an older source. In that case the older source may be preferable as it is likely to be freely available, and not behind a paywall. I have added some modern sources, but not taken out the old ones.

    For many of the other points you raise I simply do not have any more information. It's not clear from the sources exactly what the financial arrangements were. I doubt the EIC had separate budgets for trade and exploration. It seems that often payemnts were made after the event. I can find lots of references to the Madras Council, but no clear details of its constitution. I have a reference to Dalrymple determining the longitude of Sulu, but not to the value he obtained or its accuracy. And so, I am afraid, on. If there are specific points that you think need further investigation, or if you know more about these issues, please let me know. Kognos (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just want to say I have seen your reply and will try to have another in-depth look at the article tomorrow. Some of my queries are mere curiosity from my end and may not need addressing for GA status. —Kusma (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for clearing up the images. The time-traveller image on Commons is another version of the one you found and will be fine once the source is properly acknowledged. If there is no evidence for the Swedish Academy of Sciences, the claim should not be in the article. Tagging as {{cn}} would be a possibility but not at GA level, where all statements must be verifiable from reliable sources.

    I agree that a new source just blindly copying from an old source is not better to cite, but if the original source is 200 years old it often helps to get things explained and contextualised by a modern-day historian.

    It is not obvious to me which of my suggestions you have followed (most GA nominators just respond to each bullet point). So I think it is best if I basically do another round of reviewing to see whether there are any points left that need to be addressed. I am sorry but I did not manage this today, but it is on my to-do list. —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Early life: Check MOS:RANGE and MOS:DATERANGE: from 1722-1734 should be from 1722 to 1734 and 1745-6 should be 1745–1746
• I think Djakarta is usually Jakarta in English but I could be wrong.
• Voyages in Cuddalore and London 1758–1765: a subsection or two here would be nice; the section is over a screen long in my settings. or just split into the Cuddalore and the London? And/or move the eventual fate of Balambangan elsewhere?
• Do we know anything about the ships Cuddalore and London? (You don't have to do anything about this, but I am wondering how large they were)
• The map is extremely helpful to understand what happened.
• Balambangan: it still isn't clear in the article that Dalrymple tried to return there and lead the 1769/1771/1773/whenever expedition himself. See Spray p. 204 or Hoare p. 67 (he cites Fry).
• Transit of Venus: The bit about real Antarctica could be polished/shortened a bit. I'm not sure we need the 1895 landing here instead of Bellingshausen.
• BTW here is Dalrymple's election certificate for the Royal Society.
• Cape Circoncision: According to the page of A Voyage Round the World you cite, Cook did actually not find it, not "show it was not part of a continent". The statement from Beaglehole checks out; did you know there is a HTML full text online? [1]
• 18 pages in Hamilton's book is quite a long page range. Anyway, the whole bit about Antarctica and Cook's second voyage somewhat breaks the otherwise chronological order.
• Hawkesworth's Account: one of these days I need to work on that article again...
• " in a letter to Dr Hawkesworth " either drop the Dr or use this as a name, as in "a Letter to Dr Hawkesworth"
• Madras 1775-1777: I think the 17 chronometers are a bit off topic here.
• Hydrographer: "Scott Huler relates that Dalrymple's voyages had convinced him that a standard scale for measuring the speed of wind at sea would be of great value to sailors" the "he" appears to refer to Huler, and then the sentence makes little sense
• Everything in the final paragraph of this section before the statement from John Barrow seems to be unreferenced.
• The legacy section is not written in a completely encyclopedic tone. ("It is tempting...", which is a bit of a vio of MOS:EDITORIAL).
• Citation 26b (second to Beaglehole) has a page number via {{rp}}, while the other page number is in the citation at the bottom.
• There are a few unsourced things in the new legacy section. Do we really need to talk about Cook here again in so much detail?
• Do you need the years in places like "Webb (2010) argues "? That reads like a scholarly paper; Wikipedia style would more be to introduce who Webb is "The naval historian A. J. Webb argues".
• "in Pl. Coromandel Vol.3 on page 76 in 1820" is still excessive detail for the body of the article and would better be relegated to a footnote.

Lots of improvement in the early parts, but some more work remains to be done, especially in the Legacy section. I will do another round of source reviewing but not right this moment. —Kusma (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma:: Can you ping me when you have completed reviewing? Thanks Kognos (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1290831250

• 1: This is still a confusing footnote. It looks like your source for the year of birth is a book that says this very year of birth is an incorrect claim by Dalrymple. I am sure you have a dozen sources for 1737; just cite one of those instead of inviting a {{failed verification}}.
• 2b/c these still fail verification.
• 22: "these had the desired effect" is WP:OR / not in the source given.
• 34: this is WP:SYNTH from a 250 year old source that is 40 pages long, not ideal.
• 36/37: where is this in the sources? I am especially looking for the emphasis on using both methods and the effects of current.
• 38: one statement in a book does not show "he became an advocate"; this is WP:SYNTH.
• Generally it is fine to cite Dalrymple's original works for quotes, but any interpretation should come from secondary sources.

Stopping for today. —Kusma (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 39: Direct link [2] might be nicer, and page numbers. The citation has "He foresaw the importance of Captain Foster's voyage in Chanticleer, begun in 1828;, to establish the longitudes of all the principal headlands in the world." which does not completely verify the article's "It would not be until the voyage of Henry Foster to the South Atlantic in 1828-1831 that steps would be taken to implement this idea systematically": South Atlantic"? 1831?
• 40: checks out, but seems a bit off topic.
• 42: have you found this quote yourself in this copy of the book? If yes, that's cool, but verges on WP:OR. If not, you should WP:SAYWHERE you read it.
• If you want a less primary source for the Beaufort discussion (I am sure you have several): I just found Andrew Cook's article on Dalrymple from the History of Cartography [3]. I found it interesting that Beaufort was Dalrymple's successor; you kind of mention that in the Legacy section but it might make sense to talk about this when you talk about Dalrymple and Beaufort.
• 50a: you have page numbers twice here again (and not all are the same). Either put them in the body or in the footnote, do not mix. Couldn't fully check the content but it seems to agree with what I can see in Day 1967.
• 54/55: I am kind of surprised you do not cite the book (Plants of the coast of Coromandel) directly here ([4]). If you really have to include the name of the book in the body, perhaps you could at least link to it (unfortunately it is still a red link on the List of florilegia and botanical codices).
• Generally, the sourcing is quite primary-heavy. That is the right way to write a scholarly article in history, but on Wikipedia, we tend to consider this type of writing original research: as an encyclopaedia, we report the consensus of the secondary sources.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

More general comments:

• Most importantly, there is still material not directly supported by a reliable source (WP:GA? criteria 2b). I have marked some of those with {{cn}} tags.
• Some material appears to be close to interpreting the primary sources, which would be original research (2c).
• The prose looks good except in the legacy section, where there is some editorialising (1b). This section could also be structured much more clearly (it talks about several different things).
• Scope is mostly fine, but minor comments on where it is overly detailed or omits something above (feel free to explain why you disagree).
• Images are fine for GA now. Thank you very much for the maps, these are very helpful.

@Kognos: There seem to be a few points that I noticed in the first round that still have not been fixed, in particular some sourcing issues. When you go through my comments, could you please clearly state under each bullet point whether you have addressed them (or why you think I am wrong and there is no issue, or an issue that is not covered by the WP:GA? criteria). I do wish to apologise for taking to long to address this; my day job and other responsibilities have recently allowed me far less time for Wikipedia than I would like. —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I have been working through your second round of source review, up to reference 38, using the numbers from the archived version. Here are my responses:

• 1. DOB - the cited anomoly is inherited from the article before I started on it. If you're happy to just cite 1737 from DNB, so am I! Done.
• 2b. Map of the Philippines - the reference should be to Fry, not to DNB. I have updated this.
• 2c. The two citations, DNB and Fry, are intended to support the whole paragraph, not just the last sentence. Pigot's death is mentioned in Fry, but not in DNB. I have moved and modified citations which I hope makes things clearer.
• 22. This reference is only for the text of the secret instructions, and I agree that "had the desired effect" needs a source, which I have added. It is from Andrew Cook's introduction to a modern edition of Account. The relevant quote is: "It was the theory pressed by Dalrymple which caused the Admiralty to give Cook instructions to sail south from Tahiti to 40° South, and west to locate the east coast of New Zealand."
• 34. Fair point. I have added citations to two modern sources who refer to the reasons for Dalrymple's complaints.
• 36/37. The emphasis on using both methods is in a quotation from Dalrymple cited in the Cook article. I have moved this reference and added page numbers to clarify.
• 38. I have added two references to support this statement. Fry says he was an "enthusiastic champion". and Betts refers to the "patronage and support given to Arnold" by Banks and Dalrymple. I think advocacy is a reasonable paraphrase for these statements, but if you prefer a different form of words, let's discuss.
  

Your next review group includes a query on the Beaufort scale, and I need to consult Scott Huler. I don't have my own copy of this book, and have requested it from my library, which may take a day or two. In the meantime, comments and feedback welcome. Kognos (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: The National Library of Scotland was very efficient as usual, and I have checked some sources. Here are my responses for refs 39 on:

• 39. Good, I have updated the Spray link to point to the specific article, and added page numbers. Regarding the suggestion for determination of longitudes of all the principal headlands of the world, this was explicitly suggested by Dalrymple in the 1808 Collection. I think that that citation and the Spray piece between them do support the form of words I have used. Foster's voyage was planned to be world-wide, but in fact only took in the Atlantic. I have added "first steps" to indicate the partial nature of this expedition. It was mostly South Atlantic, but they did make observations as far north as Darien (where Foster drowned), so I have taken out South. I am inclined to expand on chronometers a bit. Dalrymple's relationship with Arnold was important for the development of navigation, and he seems to have been the first to use the term chronometer for a marine time-piece. But this is probably a separate issue from GA.
• 40, 17 chronometers. I have no strong feelings on this
• 42. Practical Navigation is cited by Huber, and the copy in the National Library of Scotland was referenced in the article before I started. I consulted the NLS copy, and added the spcific quote to the article. I think the citation to the NLS holding satisfies SAYWHERE, and because Huber has cited it previously this shouldn't cross the OR threshold. Huler describes the work as "buried in the papers of Dalrymple's father in the National Library of Scotland". Maybe it was in 2004, but now it's easy to find in the on-line catalogue.
• If you want a less primary source... Thanks, but both Huler and Fry are secondary or tertiary sources, and I think they cover the issues adequately. I've added a mention that Beaufort became hydrographer. I don't think this needs a citation, as all is available via the wikilink.
• 50a. Fixed
• 55/55. This was in the article before I started and I'm afraid I didn't check it properly. Thanks for the link, I have tidied this up.

I'll look next at the legacy section, then work through you earlier comments. Kognos (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Legacy section:

• "It is tempting...". When I re-read this, I thought you would probably pick it up! I've revised the paragraph
• Citation 26b. A typo, corrected.
• Citations added in the new legacy section.
• Do we really need to talk about Cook here again in so much detail? - There doesn't seem to me to be excessive detail here, it's not a long paragraph.
• Webb (2010). Well I have written a few scholarly papers in my time... but I'm happy to go along with your suggestion.
• Pl. Coromandel. Already fixed

Kognos (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've been busy implementing a lot of good changes. I've been unexpectedly busy IRL but I hope to review your changes in detail soon. —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the comments on the second round:

• MOS:RANGE and MOS:DATERANGE.

Done

• Jakarta

is right

• Voyages in Cuddalore and London 1758–1765:

subsections added

• Do we know anything about the ships Cuddalore and London?

Cuddalore was a snow, and London a packet. I don't have any more information than this. I have added wikilinks to the ship types.

• The map is extremely helpful to understand what happened.
• Balambangan:

I have re-organised this material and added an account of the disputes that led to Dalrymple's dismissal and Herbert's appontment.

• Transit of Venus: The bit about real Antarctica.

Agreed, I've shortened this. I have just used a reference to Mapping Antarctca, which I think has all we need. The key point is a little further on -- not what Dalrymple had in mind.

• BTW here is Dalrymple's election certificate for the Royal Society.

Added

• Cape Circoncision: According to the page of A Voyage Round the World you cite, Cook did actually not find it, not "show it was not part of a continent".

True, but he sailed far enough to the south of its reported location to show that if it existed (it does) it couldn't be part of a southern continent. Could add more detail, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

• The statement from Beaglehole checks out; did you know there is a HTML full text online? [5]

No, ihadn't seen this. I got a maintenace error from the site - I'll try again leter

• 18 pages in Hamilton's book is quite a long page range. Anyway, the whole bit about Antarctica and Cook's second voyage somewhat breaks the otherwise chronological order.

Sometimes themes trump chronology. I think this is the case here.

• Hawkesworth's Account: one of these days I need to work on that article again...
• " in a letter to Dr Hawkesworth " either drop the Dr or use this as a name, as in "a Letter to Dr Hawkesworth".

I've chosen the latter.

• Madras 1775-1777: I think the 17 chronometers are a bit off topic here.

I rather like slightly off-topic factlets, but never mind. I've deleted it.

• Hydrographer: "Scott Huler relates that Dalrymple's voyages had convinced him that a standard scale for measuring the speed of wind at sea would be of great value to sailors" the "he" appears to refer to Huler, and then the sentence makes little sense

It certainly makes no sense if "him" refers to Huler, but I think it is clear enough that it refers to Dalrymple - It's closer in the sentence.

• Everything in the final paragraph of this section before the statement from John Barrow seems to be unreferenced.

It's all from Spray except the Barrow statement, which was inserted later. I've added the citation to the first part.

Kognos (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I've gone back over your earlier comments to see what still needs to be done, and found the following:

• "Dalrymple sent his observations directly to William Pitt, Secretary of State" presumably he needed to get to some British trading post first?

He presumably sent it from Macao, but I have no specific information

• the Sapy (Sape) Strait I think you could just say "Sape Strait" and only say "Sapy" with a gloss when you directly quote Dalrymple.

Done

• Are the elderly sultan of Sulu and Sultan Alimuddin I. different people?

No, the same, clarified

• You probably should use one of the {{typo}} or similar templates

Done

I also meant to mention that the Huler citation was another item that was in the bio before I started, so I have no strong feelings. I'm not sure that the title of the book needs to be stated in the main text, and if you prefer an alternative form of words, do suggest. The most important point is probably that Huler cites Practical Navigation, letting me off the OR hook...

Anyway that's it from me until I get your responses. No worries about timing - I have the luxury of being retired, but I haven't forgotten real life! And I have plenty to do at the moment, adding categories to several hundred Dalrymple charts uploaded from Bibliothèque Nationale de France by a bot. Just ping me to wake me up! Kognos (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been super busy at work and with family. I am trying to catch up with things today. —Kusma (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kognos: All much better now! I am not fully sure I agree with the {{clarification needed}} tag that has been added, but could you take another look at the legacy section for that? Once that has been fixed/removed I think we should be done here. Apologies again for leaving you hanging for so long. —Kusma (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Great. I think I see the point of the clarification request, and have modified the text and removed the tag. If the editor is still not happy they can raise it in the Talk page. Please let me know when all is done. Thanks for all your work on this, which has led to real improvement. Much appreciated.Kognos (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kognos: Great, I will pass this now. —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]