Talk:Archaic globalization

16th century or up to 16th century?

The article currently states that the focus of archaic globalization is the 16th century, but History_of_globalization#History suggest it covers times up to the 16th century (I also find the latter assertion to be more correct, but it does appear that sources have varying definition of archaic globalization, as they differ on where it begun (and what came before it)). Source for 1400-1600 as the timeframe for archaic globalization; source for 16th century as the time frame for archaic glob., source that seems to use archaic globalization for the times of proto-globalization (up to 19th century), source for the archaic globalization being simply "before the 1600", another one for the same use, source using arch. glob. in the context of 100 AD, source using arch. glob. in the context of the Roman Empire. So I'd suggest defining archaic globalization as the time before 17th century (1600s), and noting that most scholars stress its time frame as from around 15th to 16th centuries, although some use it for even earlier periods (such as the times of the Roman Empire). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To-Do List

I will research how historically archaic globalization emerged. The different factors that fueled it as well as the factors that caused it to not continue into present day. I will explore different historical events that shaped the ideals of this topic. I have two resources but hope to find more once I am able to get to the library tomorrow. Resources: In defense of globalization By Jagdish N. Bhagwat

         :Globalization and the Great Convergence: Rethinking World History in the Long Term
            Northrup, David, 1941

Bfowler513 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)B. Fowler

I will focus on feudal life and the events leading up to the formation of the first trade routes, using the sources: The book Feudal Society: The Growth of Ties of Dependence by Marc Bloch and the article Dobb on the transition from feudalism to capitalism by Robert Brenner Ebw7 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add details on the trade patterns and routes that appeared during the period of archaic globalization. The resources I'm going to utilize are "The Sociology of Globailzation" by Luke Martell and "Globalization in World History" by Anthony G. Hopkins Sandere0 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan, although I see two of your members have not posted yet. Also, try to discuss things here and interact with one another, rather than just "declare" things. Check out how the Talk:Economic globalization group is doing that.

Keep in mind that you will be graded as a group, so while individual activity is important (it will "weight" your grade), you are welcome to help your colleagues with their sections. By editing only your own section, you run the risk of it being in a different style than those of your colleagues. also, keep in mind that the lead, while not the largest part of the article, should summarize all the other sections, so it is a section that is usually best written in collaboration by all editors editing the article.

Don't forget to reference all content you are adding. Usually one reliable reference per sentence is enough (but if you build your sentence relying on multiple sources, you'll use more than one ref per sentence).

You can receive email (or other) notifications whenever this page is changed. See Wikipedia:Syndication for how-to.

Other things to keep in mind: 1) you are welcome to ask for suggestions and advice from others; try doing so by visiting the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above 2) if you mange to significantly improve the article over the course of five days, you can list it at T:TDYK and see your work featured on Wikipedia's main page (this will also net you extra credit).

Oh, and it is good that you've selected readings, but keep in mind that you may scan through multiple positions (using Google Books like I demonstrated in class) rather than read few positions which titles "sound right".

PS. Don't forget that you should all be editing individually, so don't have your colleagues post your sections for you. If this happens, they will get all the credit, and you will get none. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get on here. I have decided that I will be comparing Archaic globalization with other types of globalization and give a couple examples as well for Archaic globalization.-- Corey F.Coreyj33 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think it would be a good idea to create a new section within the article labeled something like the phases of globalization. In this section we can define and give examples of such phases as archaic globalization (of course), proto-globalization, and modern globalization. In this section I believe it would also be beneficial to just list the time periods of each and maybe just a brief explanation.Sandere0 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me Sarah. I can actually put my examples that I was thinking about doing into that section. I also think once we have all of the information typed out, we can get together and put it all in order into different sections. --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah I think that sounds good too. I have a lot of research on the archaic period and pre 16th century. Does somebody want to take the proto-globalization period and modern? This could possibly be a good way to strucute the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfowler513 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

If you look at my question about the history below--should we organize specific states according to these three different "transitions" of archaic globalization?

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Haha, my name is Rachel, but it's cool. And Bridget, i'll take the proto and modern period. As you guys can see i wrote a little on the three basic principles of archaic globalization (I found that in the Bayly information), I dont know how to create a new section within the article, do you think someone could go in and fix that, or advise me on how its done? Sandere0 (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea as well but I do think that information should be in a separate section than the archaic globalization history one and possibly towards the end of the article Ebw7 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG...Rachel I totally knew that but looked at your user name real quick and for some reason thought it was sarah hahahaha whoops. Along with my section on examples and explaining some of them. I was also going to compare differetnt types of globalization> so should i just compare the proto and modern to archaic too then or si someone going to add that into a new section??--Coreyj33 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hey Guys,

I am finding that the required book for the course is pretty helpful for our topic. I am still having some trouble finding more sources but if I stumble upon something good I will let you know.

Bfowler513 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Hey.. where did you find that book at? I was looking for other sources too but there are literally none out there. Im going to have to limit my information to that "googlebooks" I guess. --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys I was just looking and actually found some good books on google for information. it may or may not help you out but here are the links http://books.google.com/books?id=MzgvKYQa4HEC&lpg=PA33&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false and http://books.google.com/books?id=8pi2kwCmzDoC&lpg=PA6&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing

I seem to be having trouble citing my references on the edit page. I can't figure out how to cite it without it showing up in the article. If I select to add references it tells me I do not have it in the proper order. Anybody know how it should go?

Bfowler513 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)B.Fowler

Look how I cited stuff for this portion, it should help. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_globalization&action=edit&section=2 Tyod (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You can also try using the cite templates you can access from the pull down menu in the edit mode (see the cite to the right of the editing toolbar). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, looking at your references it seems like you could be well served by using the Rp template for citing multiple pages from the same source. I think it would help to condense your reference section and streamline the article overall. If you'd like, you can see how it works on the article our group is working on.--Rsoruss (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

History, Comparison, Evolution, etc.

A possible recommendation is to have a history section. Also, you could possible organize it in a manner to have show an evolution or archaic globalization to present day globalization and the the differentiations between the two. I think this would solidify the topic and give a nice transitory progression to what we see in modern society. In addition, a comparison might be effective as well. Tyod (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

History Section

There are many different countries that are touched upon during early globalization. Is it more important for me to touch upon the broad spectrum of the topic or go into detail about certain actors?

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

I'd say broad. If you go into details, this may raise the question of "why did you focused so much on X, and omitted Y and Z"? If a source would allow to say more about X, just note this here. You can always come back to it later if you'll have time (we still have several weeks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be broken down because everything we are writing about is history and I think it might be getting confusing, Any suggestions on what the sections should be?Ebw7 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Informal classmate reviews

It looks like you're doing a nice job with the page. Some sections are a little awkward as the paragraphs only contain one sentence. Also it seems there may be some editing issues with the section "the distinction between food..ect." Obviously these problems can be easily ironed out. Seems like a comprehensive summary of the history of archaic globalization so far. Good work! --Kas205 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you guys could divide it up a little better. I was thinking have the history then maybe have a section about what goods were traded, means of trade, etc... It just seems to get a little cluttered and hard to read, but I'm an idiot and it's just a suggestion! Rsg20 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside Help

I made a post on the Globalization page mentioning our article and that we are welcoming all and any help! Sandere0 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I got some very helpful books from the library yesterday. Google books was very helpful to me. Articles on out topic seem to be slim to I guess look more towards the books.

67.95.168.226 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Hey Guys,

If you look at the economic development page it can be useful when thinking about different phases of archaic development. I think by tomorrow night if we all have most of our groundwork that will be useful and we can start arranging the page in a better manner. See you guys tomorrow.

Bfowler513 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget F

I agree. Alternatively, I looked at the Social Web article.. One of their last sections was devoted to applying how the Social Web affects us in our real life. I'm not quite sure if we can do something similar. However, if we did want to try I would say we could talk about how globalization has made life so easy, and then possibly talk about the negative aspects that are brought along with so much connectivity to the rest of the world. Not sure, what do you guys think?Sandere0 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Some spotchecks

Some points on sentences that need to be reworked:

• "This early form of state interaction comes from the idea of European Hegemony." - unreferenced. What early state? Does it come from the idea, of from the European Hegemony? What is European Hegemony? When you introduce such terms, they should be explained and/or linked (preferably, both)

-European Hegemony has briefly been described. Should I add more? Bfowler513 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)bridget

• "Most of the trade connecting the Middle East, North Africa and Europe was controlled by China and India around 1400." - unreferenced; and untrue. Middle East pretty much controlled the trade in its region, for example.

-This has been omitted.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "While these colonizers formed new relationships to their new land they did not retain ties to the land in which they left." - unreferenced; what colonizers? The article does not mention the word "colony" up to that point (and I assume we are talking about colonies)

-Colonizers has been changed to a more appropriate term-merchants

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "This periodization was proposed by the historian A.G. Hopkins in 2001" - right. What periodization? The article does not introduce any periodization, at least, not clearly.

-This was added by a previous editor. I have changed periodization to early globalization.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "Relative to the modern articulations of globalization that followed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, archaic globalization involved small-scale contacts between regional networks of traders or missionaries" - remember to reference key sentences like that. I am only guessing it comes from the end-of-para ref?

-Who found this point? Please add the reference.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "During the middles ages, archaic globalization produced many new goods to different surrounding countries" - globalization does not "produce" goods; you'll want to reword it
• "This was all done by numerous kings, religous wonderers, merchants, and warriors" - I am not seeing anything on linked Rossi, p.30 to support this assertion (the ref needs to be formatted, in its current raw url stage I may well be looking on a different page than the author intended)

-Whoever added this reference please go back and format it correctly.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "silks, exotic herbs, coffee, cotton, iron,Indian calicoes, Arabian horses, gems and spices or drugs such as nutmeg, cloves, pepper, ambergris and opium. Purchases of luxury items such as these are described as archaic consumption since trade was largely popular for these items as opposed to everyday needs." - sounds right, but is unreferenced...

-Whoever added this line please reference where you found it.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

• "Bayly also stresses..." - add pages to the reference, and don't forget to cite key sentences (this entire para is unreferenced, and I can only guess that it refers to the Bayly also stresses (2004) cited elsewhere in the article
• "The Three Principles of Archaic Globalization" - was this intended to be a heading?
  • Yes! I had intended on making that the heading for the section but was at the time unsure of how it was done. Was going to fix it, but someone already went in and did it! Sandere0 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good job, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Bridget.. Sry I had trouble ref. those parts and I thought I added that right but loooked back and noticed you were right. Also I went back to try and fix some of the errors bit couldnt find that section anymore.--Coreyj33 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sections

Hey guys I rearranged the sections and created headings for what I think are some of the main points linked to our topic. Please feel free to add more to sections that look like they need more and if you find that another heading is a better suit for the topic. I am basically done with the emergence of archaic globalization and the different factors that drove it. I will still be adding more but the next phases need to be developed. Hope everybody is making out okay, can't wait to see the changes made later on tonight!

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Also, if somebody thinks of a more specific topic on early globalization to research let me know and I can help add to it. I have a few books from the lib that are pretty useful.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Who is in charge of modern globalization? I started a section and added some information I found in my research. Let me know if you are having difficulty finding information I have a book that covers that topic.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Hey Bridget, Yeah I was planning on going on to do Modern globalization as well. I just hadn't gotten to it yet. But about what you already wrote down this afternoon under that section, I was wondering if you could clarify one sentence: "This began to emerge during the 1500s, continuing to expand exponentially over time as industrialization developed in the eighteenth century." In this sentence, which phase of globalization are you referring to? Because the modern period didn't start till the 19th or 20th century Sandere0 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I saw that you added information that was already added to the article into the proto-globalization section. The one small paragraph I was able to work into my first paragraph, but the second paragraph you pasted in there doesn't actually fall under proto: "Bayly also stresses the 'multi-polar' nature of archaic globalization, which involved the active participation of non-Europeans. Because it predated the Great Divergence of the nineteenth century, in which Western Europe pulled ahead of the rest of the world in terms of industrial production and economic output, archaic globalization was a phenomenon that was driven not only by Europe but also by other economically developed Old World centers such as Gujurat, Bengal, coastal China and Japan." I indented the paragraph so whomever wrote it can work it into where it fits best, (or whoever gets to it first) Sandere0 (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey sorry that section was there from before and I accidentally placed it in that section. I am not really sure where it fits in best but it is an informative section so lets see where it can go...any ideas?

Bfowler513 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

I think this section should probably be moved up to the beginning archaic globalization, if we intend to keep it. I think most of it is unnecessary except for maybe the "great divergence" part because one of the major points of the article is about how Europe was not the only powerful region Ebw7 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

World Systems Theory

Is the reference of this section "Before European Hegemony"? It needs a citation but I did not want to put the wrong source Ebw7 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Time Stamps

Okay, so our posts are being posted hours ahead of the actual times we're putting them up. This isn't so good, He's going to assume we're posting things late and won't give us credit!Sandere0 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about me, I've my preferences set to display our local time, not the default UTC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I'm nominating us now because I'm worried we're all going to think someone will do it and then it won't get done! We still have over an hour before midnight, and they say there's a waiting list of these nominations so they won't get to ours immediately! Sandere0 (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that your teacher, wonderful man that he is, has asked for volunteers to review the class's articles more quickly, because it's a time-sensitive assignment. So, I will be taking the review, but can wait to begin the review until ya'll think that you're finished. Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sarah I just saw that you did the nomination. Good job because I had no I dea how to. --Coreyj33 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Corey, my name is RACHEL Sandere0 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Rachel I know this!! hahaha I must have been in a hurry when I wrote that and remembering how last time we got it wrong .. I'm soooo sorry ! ha

pp

"pp" stands for pages (plural); for page (singular) you want "p" (again singular). -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

the term "archaic globalization"

Do we know who coined this particular term, and where? Is the term widely used by historians; and if so, can three significant historians who use it be specified? -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The only historian who seems to be referenced in my readings for first describing archaic globalization is Hopkins? I do not want to specify this if he is not the one who coined the term. Any suggestions where I could look to find that information?

Bfowler513 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Are your sources clearly stating he coined the phrase? A search on Google Print, with publication date ranges, does suggest he was the first to use it in his 2002 Globalization in world history. See if nothing earlier appears in Google Scholar, to be sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, Bfowler! A very quick (and insufficient) look in Google Scholar:

1. shows other scholars remarking on Hopkins' use of the term in 2002
2. doesn't show anybody using the term before 2002
3. shows talk (here) of "Bennison 2002" also using it.

Bennison was a contributor to a book edited by Hopkins and published in 2002 (see here). I can make guesses about what's going on here, but it would be much better to examine the book. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs more work, chaps

I take an example, pretty much at random:

The three principles of archaic globalization

Alan Bayly claims that archaic globalization comprises three principles: Universalizing kingship, extension of religion, and the understandings of bodily health.

1. Universalizing (universalized?) kingship in contradistinction to what? (Hunter-gatherer societies? City states? ...?) Is "find honor and prestige" a euphemism for pillage and conquest? (Etc)
2. "Extension of religion" means nothing to me. I read on and see that it means pilgrimages. If that's all it means, then how about just "pilgrimages"? If it means something else, then what?
3. "the understandings of bodily health" sounds very odd. (For one thing, why pluralize "understanding"?) I read on, and infer that it means something like the quest for medicinal substances. As the item above: If that's all it means, then (etc etc).

Incidentally, if the book reference is correct as far as it goes (and I don't know), then the book would seem to be:

C. A. Bayly, The birth of the modern world, 1780-1914: Global connections and comparisons (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004; ISBN 0-631-18799-5).

That's from WorldCat, which of course might be wrong -- but I believe that in 2004 Blackwell was already well on the way to becoming part of Wiley. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That was from near the bottom. How about one from near the top?

Archaic globalization is comparable to today's large scale globalization just on a smaller context. States began to interact and trade with others within close proximity as a way to acquire coveted goods that were considered a luxury. This trade lead to the spread of ideas such as religion, economy and politics. Actors became connected and aware of others in ways that had not been apparent.

Well, all sorts of things are comparable with all sorts of things. (You can't compare archaic globalization to my fridge or my need for a haircut, but it's obvious that anything called "globalization" will be comparable with anything else called "globalization".) Did states really trade with each other, or do you mean merchants and merchant organizations within these states? I'm puzzled by the notion of "an idea such as politics" (let alone economy); do you perhaps mean religious and political ideas? (But surely, early well documented spread of religions predated your subject matter by several centuries.) By "actors", do you mean states, merchants, producers, consumers, or what?

Really, each part of this article should be examined really hard by two people within your team who didn't write it. When that's done, a couple of you should independently go through print-outs with a red pen, and then carefully edit the result. All the best! -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A good idea, although this can be achieved in a digital way, too. Don't hesitate to edit and comment on others' sections, and Hoary's comments above nicely show how the writing can be improved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of it can be achieved on screen, yes; and let's not rush to waste trees. But I don't think I'm unusual in sometimes being more or less numbed by the screen. If I work on my prose to the point where it looks good on screen and then leave it a day and print it out on paper, I then typically see all kinds of duplications, inconsistencies, non-sequiturs, and flabby phrasing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I will be fine-tuning the sections today and clarifying some points that seem to have some confusion. I am not quite sure what needs to be clarified with "an idea such as politics" you are right with your assumption about political and religious ideas. You are also correct with your assumption about "actors" being states, merchants, consumers etc. I am implying all of these with the term actors. Also, what important topics do we seem to be missing that we can add? Hopefully my group-mates are working on adding more to the bare sections.

Bfowler513 (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Thank you for the energetic and thoughtful response. Well, for what is/was This trade lead to the spread of ideas such as religion, economy and politics, how about This trade lead to the spread of religious, economic and political ideas? (NB this is a guess. I am not a historian and I am sorry to say that I am ignorant about this matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaic globalization/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm going to be reviewing this article for good article status. If I've read your talk page comments correctly, it looks like you're not quite ready for a review, so I'll hold off until you would like me to start. I have watchlisted both this page and the talk page of the article, so feel free to let me know in either spot that you are ready for the review to start. Just as a first comment, taking care of all of the tags and responding to the various comments that outside editors have left on the talk page are two things that you should concentrate on initially. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning the review. We can wait to see if the student-editors have any preferences on which day they'd like to see your review; according to the assignment guidelines they should be ready to receive your feedback at any point now. If over the next few days you could review the article, it would be great; part of the assignment is to improve the article based on the Good Article Reviewer comments. The assignment ends around the 20th June, after which little further editing is likely to occur as part of the assignment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I am not seeing any requests for extension, I'd suggest a preliminary review soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary review

Here are some preliminary comments. I've gotten a bit busy, so my apologies if the review comes up in sections - feel free to work on the comments I've put up so far, and I'll just add on to the end.

• The "page needed" tags need to be taken care of.
• Ref #7 (Oxford English Dictionary) needs more information. Which edition of the dictionary? Which year? Etc.
• Why are named references not used? They're editor preference, but they tend to make the references cleaner.
• Modern globalization section, "Noteworthy, is the affect of the world wide web. The invention of the Internet drastically increased the reaches of globalization." - needs a reference; who says it's noteworthy?
• The "World systems theory from archaic globalization perspective" section needs referencing. The article says "Many argue" - who are the many? Why should we listen to them?
• Lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD, 2-3 paragraphs would be appropriate. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, but not include new information.
• Similar references should preferably be formatted the same. For instance, references 1, 47 and 53 are all to the same book, but are all formatted differently.

These are my thoughts for now. I'll do a closer read-through of the prose tomorrow, although I'm concerned from a brief look today that many parts read like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. More later, Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the section "The three principles of archaic globalization", the article says "Alan Bayly claims..." Do other historians agree with this claim? Do they disagree? Are there other theories?

Citation density needs increase. In the para/section "Defining globalization", the same ref is used for three sentences. Why those three? Why not all? Most other paras suffer from the same problem. Another issue (simple to solve) - the paragraphs are too long, break them down into something smaller. Regarding "Bayly claims", unless others disagree with him, there is probably no need to name him in the sentence, ref footnote will do just fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, check out how your colleagues from 2009 developed the Proto-globalization article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the preliminary review. Do you have any specific advice as to how to expand the beginning section but not add too much detail to it? Also, is there specific sections or sentences that seem to read as an essay so that I can look further into correcting this? Bfowler513 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Regarding the lead expansion, think what are the most important points the article makes, and make sure they are covered in the introduction. Regarding essay-like feeling, I think you manage to address this problem; at least I am not seeing much that would raise a red flag for me - would you agree, Dana? A further thought: "Defining globalization" should define "archaic globalization" as a term; it currently does a good job of defining globalization, and archaic - but separately. You can fix this easily by copying the referenced definition from the lead there; then you could remove the reference from the lead. The "The Three Principles of Archaic Globalization" section should probably be merged with it, or moved next to it, at the very least. Seeing as how you are still planning some expansion, I think you are making very good progress with the article; just please don't forget to increase the reference density. PS. This edit addresses a cite request, but it should copy, not move a reference. Check WP:CITE for how to use named references (<ref name=text>ref info</ref> and <ref name=text/> can allow you to reduce the number of code and references on display). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dana! I have made repairs to the paragraphs in regards to essay-like penmanship. Please make direct references to areas which I have missed, though! Sandere0 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Rachel

Continued comments

I was kind of waiting for the rest of the comments above to be taken care of, but the majority of them seem to be done, so I'll add a few more (although some might be repeats):

• Lead - Your teacher is correct above - pick the most important points from the article and summarize them in the lead, while including only information that is in the body. As I said above, for an article of this length, the lead should be 2-3 good paragraphs. Basically, by reading the lead, a reader should be able to have a rather complete overview of the basic points of the topic, and then be able to find detail about these points in the body.
• The essay-style writing looks much better - there were several spots I saw it earlier, but I can't find it now, so I'm assuming it was removed.
• Still some tags - I see a "citation needed", a "who" and several "page needed"s.
• Ref #7 (dictionary.com.) does not support the sentence it's supposed to be referencing, as it mentions nothing about European Hegemony.
• I'm still wondering why named references aren't used - they would clean up the references significantly.

More in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for more suggestions Dana, Im going to look back into it and see if I can fix the references. --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, Dana, if you think the article has progressed beyond start, perhaps you'd like to reassess it to C or B classes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dana most of the "page needed" tags have been taken care of Ebw7 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

• The lead is better, but could still stand to be longer.
• There should be no spaces between punctuation and references.

I deleted the spacesEbw7 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• References with single pages should say "p.", while references with multiple pages should say "pp."

I took care of the p vs. pp. thing

• Emergence of a world system - Reference #8 does not support this as it does not mention European Hegemony. As far as I can tell, it's just defining Hegemony in general, but the part of the sentence that really needs the reference is "This early form of state interaction comes from the idea of European Hegemony," which is not backed up in any way by the given reference.

I just deleted this sentence, I don't feel that it was that important to the rest of the articleEbw7 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Way too much jumping around in time. For example, take the first three paragraphs of the "Emergence of a world system" section. You go from the 16th and 17th century to the 12th century to the 9th century, back to the 16th century and then begin a new paragraph discussing "These early movements" without giving a reference point for which point in time you're talking about.

I am trying to make this section flow a little betterEbw7 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• The three principles of archaic globalization - This section needs some work. I still have no idea what "universalizing kingship" means, even after reading the section multiple times. Also, words like "despite the" and "finally" are bridge words, used in paragraph prose. The bullet points should either be turned into prose, or the bridge words removed.
• Proto globalization, "ranging within the 17th and 19th centuries." Within = 18th century. Would something like "from the 17th through the 19th centuries" be more accurate?

this has been changedEbw7 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Proto globalization, "Such wars include the French and Indian War and the American Revolutionary War." These examples are rather North America-heavy. Are there any examples from Europe, Asia and Africa?

I added the example of the Anglo-Dutch WarEbw7 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the proto-globalization section feels extremely out of place, as you have been discussing proto-globalization and then suddenly jump back into archaic globalization. Better organization is needed.

This paragraph was moved up to "the emergence of a world system" sectionEbw7 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Modern globalization, "In addition, institutions such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and other international telecommunication companies" The WB and WTO are not int'l telecom companies, so "other" is out of place.

More later... Dana boomer (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)et

Dana, thanks again for your most recent comments. I will try my best to try and fix some of these sections though I amm not the best at this so be leanient with me. Also I did not know that we needed "pp" for multiple pages so I'll go and try to find them to fix too. thanks again.--Coreyj33 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If needed, I can delay grading this article till tomorrow evening. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

More

There were quite a few spots that made me go "what?" - I really don't understand what they are saying:

• Lead, "Actors became connected" You haven't yet described who the actors are - states, kings, organizations, etc?
• Lead, "This type of early communication" what type?
• Lead, "allow it to conform to present day society." What?
• Defining globalization, "The term Archaic can be described as early ideals and functions that were once historically apparent in society but may have disintegrated over time." What?
• Defining globalization, "This is one of the driving forces" Are there others?
• Emergence, "Hopkins main points on archaic globalization can be seen with trade, and diaspora that developed from this, as well as religious ideas and empires that spread throughout the region." What?
• Emergence, "This new interaction amongst states led to interconnections between parts of the world which led to the eventual interdependency amongst these state actors." Redundancy of "inter-"
• Emergence - define mini-globalization
• Economic exchange, "throughout the region" What region?
• Economic exchange, "once the weekly market began to expand from barter to the monetized system required by long-distance trading." Once this happened, then what?
• Economic exchange, "A higher circuit of trade" What?
• Economic exchange, "from outside distant directions" What?
• Economic exchange, "that were not demanded by the local agriculturalists but for markets in their home towns." What?
• Economic exchange, "When the local individuals placed advanced orders, customers from towns of different traders may begin to place order for items in a distant town that their trader can order from their counterpart." What?
• Economic exchange, "This central meeting point, becomes the focus of long-distance trade and how it began to increase." What?
• Expansion, "In order for trade to be able to expand during this early time period, it required" Trade is not sentient, cannot "require" anything.
• Expansion, "motive for exchange" what?
• Spread, "and could not have been aided without them." What?
• Spread, "as valuable on different levels." What?
• Spread, "began in the form of blood ties" What? Does this mean within families?
• Spread, "which had never been apparent in most societies" What wasn't apparent?
• Spread, "Also, this globalization lessened the degree of feudal life by transitioning from self-sufficient society to a money economy." Not understanding the connection here?
• Spread, "Most of the trade connecting North Africa and Europe was controlled by the Middle East, China and India around 1400." Why?
• Spread, "The thirteenth century as well as present day favor luxury items" Centuries cannot favor.
• Spread, "Purchases of luxury items such as these are described as archaic consumption since trade was largely popular for these items as opposed to everyday needs." What?
• Major trade routes, "Baghdad was defeated by the Mongols" Cities cannot be defeated.
• Major trade routes, "as power centers of trading that would be the source of supplies for the merchants caravans and policing the trade routes." What?
• Major trade routes, "cultural backgrounds could meet and cultures could interact." cultural...cultures - redundant.
• Proto-globalization, "to more distinguished expansionism" What?

• This has been changed to "more distinguished expanding routes", which is still unclear. What is a distinguished expanding route?

• Modern globalization, "The evolving beginnings of this period" What?
• Modern globalization, "This began to emerge during the 1500s," Another time jump, since we were just discussing the 19th century.
• Modern globalization, "The introduction of multinational corporations, technology, science," Technology and science were not introduced during this period, they were simply improved upon, as they continue to be today and have been throughout history.

This is the majority of the big issues I found with the article. There are some other minor points I'll post tomorrow morning, but the article should be at least B-class once these (and the remaining issues listed above) are taken care of. Thank you all for your continued work on this, even in spite of my continued delays :) Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just signed on and saw all of these slight errors that neeed to be fixed. I'll try and go through and reword some of these mistakes to make better sense. Other than that I dont know what else we can do. Go easy on us Dana Ha--Coreyj33 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

More

• File:Archai.jpg does not have a proper fair use rationale, and I don't think that it is necessary to have a fair use image in this article. The image is replacable, and being irreplaceable is a key aspect of fair-use policy.
• Does ref #55 actually back up the fact that the Anglo-Dutch War was the result of "a measurable amount of polyethnic regions due to these higher frequency trade routes"? Just because a reference mentions this war doesn't mean that it is an example of the point you are making.
• "abu-lughod, janet (1991). before european hegemony. oxford university press." Please use proper capitalization - this is extremely unencyclopedic.
• I've added a few citation needed and "who" tags.
• Lead, "serving as "break-in-bulk"" What is break-in-bulk?
• Lead, "While long distance trading came with many trials and tribulations, still so much of it went on during this early time period." "Still so much of it" is ungrammatical.
• Lead, "Linking the trade together involved eight interlinked subsystems that were grouped into three large circuits," The lead should be a summary of the body of the article and contain no new information. I don't believe I've seen this information in the body. Also, what are "interlinked subsystems" and "large circuits"?
• Emergence, "During the early exchanges between states" What is considered early?
• Emergence, "There is a 'multi-polar' nature to archaic globalization," At the end of this paragraph, you may want to expand on how this changed with later types of globalization.
• Three principles, "Archaic globalization is comprised of three principles:" From my understanding, archaic globalization is not comprised of these principles. It is, instead, perhaps influenced or based upon these principles, but they do not form the entirety of archaic globalization.
• Three principles, "Despite the vast distances covered by monarchs and their companies, pilgrimages remain one of the greatest global movements of people." I'm assuming this relates to the "expansion of religious movements", but it needs more detail. Pilgrimages are generally the existing followers of a religion traveling to a holy place; the expansion of religion seems to indicate more of a spreading of religion to people who were previously non-believers.

The article is looking much improved from where it was when I first saw it. However, there are still a lot of unclear places and wording that just doesn't make sense. I know that your teacher is planning to grade tonight, and I'm sorry that I didn't get the remainder of this review up until now. However, you guys have done well in responding to the majority of my comments, and the article has gone from a stub to a solid C-class/almost B-class article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The assignment has ended, and I don't expect any further student editing as the motivation (grade) is gone (although it would be a nice surprise). The article has been improved from stub to C-class. Thanks for you assistance, hopefully somebody else can take the points above and improve the article further! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

After waiting another few days, it looks like no more editing is going to be done on this article, so I am failing the GAN. As I said before, the students have done a nice job improving this from stub to C-class, but I feel that there are too many unclear areas and prose issues for it to even be of B-class at this time. I hope, as Piotrus does above, that someone else will come along who has the interest and access to the sources to address the above points - I feel that with access to the sources, improving this article to GA-class would not be very difficult. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Headlines

What is everybody working on? I see very little being added to the sections we have already. This needs to be done ASAP so whatever you are working on please add to the article as soon as you can or if you seem to be having trouble finding more information or resources please ask other group members for suggestions. Aside from Proto and Modern globalization that Rachel is working on what else is everybody up to? I will be fine tuning my sections in the beginning as well as the world system theory in terms of archaic globalization. If anybody has any suggestions to make any section better please do not hesitate to add to our talk page.

Bfowler513 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

I recommend you (by you I mean all the editors here) think of the article, rather than one "own's" section. Wikipedia actively suggests this (see WP:OWN); we don't own articles or sections, we work on all of them. So if you think some sections need help, be bold and improve them. Grading is done on the individual and group basis, not on a section basis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I added some new sections. Feel free to expand upon them or make any necessary changes.

Bfowler513 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Another possible suggestion for the article would be to describe the main trade routes during this time. Specific ones can either be added to sections in place or maybe add a different section for it.

Bfowler513 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Ok I was having an issue coming up with more information. I will definitely look into specific trade routes Ebw7 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Im trying to add some last minute things in one of the section to try to expand it. but there is little imformation left to go on and everything is pretty much in the article as it is now.--Coreyj33 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty more information to be added to each section. If you look at the required book for the class as well as look on Pittcat I am sure you can find more information to add. If you really can't find any information then edits should be made to the page.

Bfowler513 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Picture

Does anybody know how to add a picture if it is saved on your computer and not on the internet? Is it even possible? Or if anybody can find the Pax Mongolica Different regional systems picture.

Bfowler513 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

If you want to upload an image, the Special:Upload links a number of guides, including this video tutorial (as does our wiki syllabus). I hope this is what you are looking for, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What Piotrus said. But also: NB that concern about copyright (no matter how silly you or I may find this concern) always trumps common sense, etc. Please take any matter of copyright extremely seriously. That's the bad news. The good news is that Wikimedia Commons (here) has an enormous amount of images that you can use without any worry about copyright. Finding what you want within Commons isn't always easy; if you don't find what you want within 5 minutes, extend this to 30 minutes. You'll probably find this less frustrating than your first attempts to upload new material. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. See Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial guide, and my comments to Erik about copyright images. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sections that need more info/editing

The sections expansion of long distance trade, proto globalization, modern globalization, the three principles of archaic globalization and major trade routes can all be expanded upon or edited. Since everybody seems to be having trouble coming up with more information this should allow you know where to look specifically and where to add information.

Bfowler513 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Sounds good Bridget, thanks .. I added some more to the trading routes section and Im going to going into proto globalization and expand that some more.--Coreyj33 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)