Wikipedia:Peer review/Simon Hatley/archive1

Simon Hatley

I've listed this article for peer review because… I started this article 9 years ago, about the man who shot an albatross and had the fortune, good or ill, to be immortalised in Coleridge's poem for it. I'd appreciate attention to British usage, I'm especially uncertain about apostrophes. Pre-FAC of course. Thanks.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

You won't get much from me on this. It's pretty much all shipshape and Bristol fashion.

• Early life
  • "Haberdashers of hats" looks odd to an English eye. Either just "haberdashers" or just "hatters" would be usual.
  • I think the possible connexion to the Earls of Pembroke could do with a citation.
  • As you are using BrE for this article I'd change "he likely could have followed" to "he probably could have followed". The former is a construction hardly ever seen in BrE, I don't know why. Ditto later for "Selkirk, likely the original for Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe" (I was amazed to learn that the Ancient Mariner met Robinson C.),"a priest intervened, likely saving their lives", "and the expedition commander was likely the responsible party".
• Career
  • "the War of the Spanish Succession between Britain and Spain" – I'd be inclined to omit or modify the last four words, as that particular war was something of a pan-European punchup.
• Voyage with Rogers
  • You give the Duchess a definite article, but omit it at the second mention in the second sentence. Ditto for Duke in the next para, and Duchess in the penultimate para of the section. This doesn't bother me one bit, but I'm just checking it's what you intend.
  • "Hatley did not make it that far. Hatley remained" – perhaps just "he" for the second Hatley here?
• Shelvocke expedition
  • "Rogers' crew" – but "Rogers's expedition" and "Rogers's efforts" earlier. I think of the shorter version as AmE and the longer as BrE, though it isn't really as clear-cut as that. (I could quote examples of the shorter form in a v. highly respected British style guide.) Still, it's as well to be internally consistent, whichever you favour.
• Literary influence
  • "wherein" – I say! Fair enough (esp. in a section headed Literary influence) but a plain "in which" would do.

That's all from me. I was surprised you made no mention of Shelvocke's later success with A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, but I may be getting muddled. I found this a fascinating article, and something of a revelation, too. I had no idea the Ancient Mariner had any real-life parallels, and am delighted to learn it now. I add the usual request to be pinged when you go to FAC. Tim riley talk 11:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those comments. I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

• I'll take a look at this later today. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• In the article about the poem, there is hardly a mention of Simon Hatley, and when there is, it seems almost fictional.

I don't see it that way. Rime is a very long poem and there is room for inspiration from a lot of sources. Wordsworth talks about the Shelvocke book and how at the high southern latitudes, they often encountered albatrosses. Although he doesn't quite close the loop and say that Hatley's shooting of an albatross inspired the Mariner's ditto, the sources take it for granted that it did, and although most of the relevant sources in the Rime article are offline, I doubt they disavow the Hatley connection.

• In the second paragraph of "Early life", is it all speculation, as it seems?

No, we know that he was literate in Latin and trained in Bristol as a pilot because that is what the Inquisition documentation says, that Fowke reviewed. He would not have remained as an apprentice past the age of 21, thus the year (Fowke makes the connection, not me). And he certainly signed on to the Rogers expedition as stated. Where there is speculation (i.e., the reason why a boy from Oxfordshire went to sea), it is in the source.

• "at the time government regulations limited the percentage of seamen private vessels such as Rogers's could have in their crews" just my curiosity, but is there a set percentage as a number that you could include?

Yes, 50. I've included it.

• "It was now time to begin raiding Spanish commerce." As though it wasn't before. I get what you're trying to say, but perhaps say something like "After leaving Cumberland Bay, they begin raiding Spanish commerce."

Rewritten a bit differently, but to the same effect.

• "Thus, for a time, Hatley, who would inspire Coleridge's Ancient Mariner, Selkirk, probably the original for Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe and Dampier, possibly the inspiration for Jonathan Swift's Lemuel Gulliver (of Gulliver's Travels), shared the same vessel." I like this fact, but is Hatley definitely the inspiration, because the page for the poem is not as confident as the article.

I've made it clearer that he inspired the albatross shooting. But as Coleridge himself pointed out, through most of the poem, the Mariner is being acted upon, not acting, so I don't know if there's a practical difference. The shooting of the albatross is virtually the only independent action the Mariner takes.

• "the local natives" Do you need to say "local natives"? couldn't you just say "locals" or "natives"?

Fair enough.

• "Hatley was already familiar with their South Pacific destination" put an as before Hatley?
• For sources:
  • Severin, pp. 62 (should be p. 62)
• A very nice article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)