Talk:Batavian Republic/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been nominated for GA-status in February, 2009, but has been failed because the concerns of the reviewer were not addressed within deadline. This was because I, as principal contributor, was not aware of the review process at the time, and nobody else stepped up either. I have now addressed the original concerns with appropriate edits of the article (see Talk:Batavian Republic). Under the circumstances I think a renomination would be less appropriate than a reassessment on the grounds that the original assessment was not appropriate (by default, of course; this does not imply criticism of the person who failed the article).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on review after GA Fail

I am the reviewer who failed this article for GA. I have been asked by the primary editor Ereunetes to reassess the article and give further input on its quality, with (I believe) the ultimate goal of the article being reevaluated for GA status. Below are my thoughts, which will come in sequential order as I read this rather extensive article. H1nkles (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• As a general note from my recollection of the previous review, and upon reading only through the lead, it is my opinion that the wording and prose is cumbersome. Vocabulary is excellent but many of the sentences are either to verbose or convoluted to the point that in some instances I don't understand what is being said. For example, "Though the new Republic enjoyed widespread support from the Dutch population and was the product of a genuine popular revolution, it clearly was put in being with the armed support of the revolutionary French Republic." I'm not sure what is meant by "it clearly was put in being". Does that mean it was created due to the armed support of revolutionary France? I think so but it's not clear. If that is the case, then the end of the sentence is a completely different subject than the beginning of the sentence. The two should be separate sentences. My counsel is to say what is intended in as few words as possible. Viciously cut wording to streamline this article.

I'll take your general comment to heart. With respect to the specific example in the lead section: I have broken that sentence up.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• What is meant by "sister-republic" in the second paragraph. Are you referring to France? The sentence in which this wording appears is a run-on sentence and another example of over-use of words.

My first reaction was that this remark showed that you are indeed unfamiliar with the subject. But that is beside the point. However, in general I think that we should not shrink from unfamiliar terms in wikipedia, as long as they are properly explained. I found a wikilink ,with some difficulty, by first looking up the technical term "republique soeur" in the French wikipedia (where the term is marvelously explained, with its significance for historians) and then following the English interwikilink, which gave me the article I wikilinked "sister republic" (the quotes denote irony here) to. In my view the English wikipedia article does not serve the purpose as well as the French one (this is often a problem with wikipedia articles :-), but it will have to do.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "A type of ministerial government was introduced for the first time in Dutch history and many of the current government departments date their history back to this period" When was this adopted?

This is in the main body of the article. As to the main principle, see next comment.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• There could be some more wikilinking in the lead. Words like revolutionary France, are there articles on some of the coup d'etat that occured during this time? These could be wikilinked. H1nkles (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As you know, I wrote the lead in response to your complaint in the previous review attempt in February that the lead was too skimpy. By then the article itself had long been finished, including wikilinks. I implicitly assumed that duplicate wikilinks should be avoided, and as the lead is intended as a summary of the main points covered by the article I thought the best policy would be to leave them out here (like citations, by the way) and leave them to the locations in the main body where they would be of most use. Now, we could do three things: introduce duplicate wikilinks, put the wikilinks in the lead and eliminate duplicates elsewhere, or leave the situation as it is. I am sure there is a wikipedia policy that could be quoted here for my elucidation.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally my experience (can't find it in the MOS just my experience w/ GAs) is that links can appear in the Lead and then appear at least one more time in the article's body w/o it being considered duplicate links. Since it is based on experience rather than implicit guidelines I'll leave it to your discretion. H1nkles (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• In this sentence in the "Creation of the Republic" section, "Aided by the fact that a substantial proportion of the Dutch population looked favorably upon the French incursion, and often considered it a liberation,[4] the French were quickly able to break the resistance of the forces of the Stadtholder, and his Austrian and British allies." You have the in-line citation in the middle of the sentence. Is there a reason for this? Does the citation support the entire sentence or just the claim cited? If it doesn't support the entire sentence then there needs to be a cite for the assertions made in this sentence. Nonetheless I try to put all citations at the end of the sentence unless absolutely necessary. This would be consistent with WP:CITE and just help with readability. H1nkles (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Here's another example from the next section, "Though the French presented themselves as liberators,[7] they behaved like conquerors". Why isn't the cite put at the end of the sentence (four words later)? It makes it appear as though the cite only deals with one part of the sentence, which makes the reader question the rest of the uncited sentence. In this particular sentence one could also make a POV argument. Do you have a citation to back up the assertion that they behaved like coquerors? The rest of the paragraph seems to support this notion but it should be cited in the opening sentence. H1nkles (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a long time ago since my version of the article first appeared, but if I remember correctly at least one of the (duplicate) assertions that the French were viewed as "liberators" by (a substantial part of, but that qualification is always implicit) the Dutch people was challenged with a "citation needed" challenge (probably the first one, as I supplied both Schama and Israel there and only Schama in the second instance). Hence the peculiar placement of the footnotes; they do indeed refer to the assertion in question. The entire sentence is referenced by Schama pp. 188-190, as in fn. 5. This is a detail. More important is the principle. I personally prefer references at the end of the paragraph and normally use those. However, in case of a specific challenge one sometimes does not have a choice. I'd be happy to put all these references in a combined one at the end of the paragraph, but I'd like some protection against repetitions of the challenge in that case. Incidentally, I naievely assumed that checking the references was part of the review process. If you had checked the reference your question would have been answered. I now suspect that not so much the reference, as the fact that a reference is supplied (whatever its quality), is the important point?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

reference placement is also a bit of a preference issue. As long as the assertions made in each paragraphs are sourced then that is what is important. I do check sources in my reviews but when the sources are from books I don't have in my library or can't access on-line then it is diffuclt for me to evaluate the source. At that point I take the editor's sources in good faith and ask questions, such as the one above, when I need clarification. H1nkles (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I added a to the end of the introductory paragraph in the "Stages in the history of the new Republic" section. There are a lot of assertions made in this section with sparse citations. I also rewrote a sentence at the end for better flow.

As you noted, it is an introductory section, looking forward to the contents of the "stages" main section. I cherry-picked elements from different "stages" to highlight. In consequence, if one indeed wishes to reference every assertion, each sentence should receive a citation. Is that what you want, or can I put everything in one, overarching citation at the end of the paragraph?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An overarching citation is fine, no need to source every sentence, but it does raise red flags when a paragraph has no source or a long paragraph that covers several assertions has one or perhaps two citations. H1nkles (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this term, "old particularist". What is this in reference to?

It was "particualrist interests", not "old Particularist." Fortunately, there was a wikipedia article I could link to in this case :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Most articles I review way over-link. This article could be under-linked. I did some wikilinking, rewriting and added another to the end of the "The 'revolutionary' States-General" section. I wikilinked Groningen but you'll need to specify what exactly you're referring to by use of this word, I'm assuming the Dutch city but not sure. H1nkles (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation was provided yesterday, and the correct Groningen (province) link provided earlier. In connection with the latter: when I wrote the article, there was only one article I could link to (that link is elsewhere in the article, so there now is a duplicate somewhere). When the differentiation page was first set up somebody thoughtfully supplied the correct new link then. I suppose I'll have to remove the other link to take care of the duplication you created?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, duplicative links is a bit of a matter of preference. If the link is duplicated in a very different part of the article then (personally) I don't have a problem with it. But again this is a preference so I'll leave that to your own devices. H1nkles (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The "Struggles for Constitution" section is too detailed. There is a long (two paragraph) discussion on the political history of the Unitarists and Federalists. I think this could be significantly trimmed to one paragraph. In the spirit of summary style it is important to paint the picture in broad strokes, and perhaps move some of the minutiae to a more specific article on the constitutional process of the Batavian Republic. Of course it is this reviewer's opinion only and could be disagreed with.

I disagree indeed with your opinion. Vehemently in this case. The one paragraph on the struggle between the Unitarist and Federalist factions goes to the heart of the matter. If one cannot explain the nature of the disagreements, why have an article at all? The fact that people disagreed is in itself not very informative. Unfortunately, a usable other article is lacking. I don't feel the urge to write it myself, if this (broadly phrased) paragraph does the job of explanation adequately.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• What are "crypto-Orangists"? And what is a "rump-Assemply"? Watch the usage of jargon and assume your reader to be a novice on Dutch history and political terms (as I certainly am).

"Orangists" is wikilinked earlier in the article. Crypto-Orangist is here used in the same sense as Crypto Anarchist (there is a wikipedia article, but this describes something completely different from the common English expression :-), crypto-communist, crypto-fascist. I just looked up the Crypto article, but that is a disambiguation page that does not use the meaning of the word intended in all these constructions. Do I now write an article on the meaning of crypto and link that to that disambiguation page? I'll supply a wikilink to Rump legislature behind rump-Assembly.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to explain simply how the people in question were "crypto" Orangists? H1nkles (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The last paragraph in this section has no citations at all, this needs to be addressed. Also this statement in the preceding paragraph, "As such it had an importance that outlasted the Batavian Republic and set up an ideal to emulate for its successor states" needs a citation. H1nkles (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess this concern had already been addressed, as there now are two citations in the last paragraph.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "by having purging commissions purge the electoral rolls" too many uses of "purge", consider using a different word.

Used a different word.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• In reference to "The Uitvoerend Bewind" section this statement seems a bit puffed, "violating the exalted person of the ambassador".

Used a different phrase.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here is another party, "Dutch oppositionists". Who are the Dutch oppositionists? Are they radicals, Federalists, Unitarists, or another party?

Replaced "oppositionists" with "opposition members".--Ereunetes (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the first mention of the term "Vreede-Fijnje". It is also the last mention of it. What is it? I note in reference note #30 that these two were leaders of the "Bewind", but this is not enunciated in the body of the article and so to refer to it as such w/o context is confusing.

Actually, the phrase used is "Vreede-Fijnje Bewind". This type of construction is commonly used in English to qualify a particular, let's say "Cabinet," (which a Bewind resembles; the term is explained in the article) with the people that are its leaders. Both Vreede and Fijne were identified in the previous section (with wikilinks to their biographies) and it is clear from the context that they were the ringleaders of the coup d'état that brought their government into being.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "which favored the election of staid Patriot regents, and discriminated against the more talented "young Turks" that were appointed Agents, like Jacobus Spoors, Gerrit Jan Pijman, and Isaac Jan Alexander Gogel." Please support the fact that the Patriot regents were "staid" and the "young Turks" (another term I'm not familiar with) were more "talented". Also talented at what? Were they more progressive, more aggressive, or independent-minded? This section tends to cast conservative politics in a disparaging light. This sentence is an example. Also the last sentence in the previous paragraph, "The elections often put people into office that were very much opposed to the unitary state that was now enshrined in the constitution, and to other innovations that it entailed, or in any case were of a conservative inclination" seems to criticize political conservatism as well. Is there a reason for this? H1nkles (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to take this in sections. The phrase used is "election of staid Patriot regents" I therefore don't have to prove that they were really "staid" (I have no opinion one way or the other), I am just saying that their "staid-ness" (if that is a word) was a qualification that helped them get elected. Some people do not think that being "staid" is a disqualification, unlike yourself, apparently :-) I have provided a link to the "Young Turk" article for your edification. This article explains also how the term is used in general parlance outside the context of the last stages of the Ottoman empire. I use the term "talented" in all the meanings you enumerate. I would have replaced it with "competent" if the sentence had been different, but I think the word is still adequate here.

These are all quibbles, however. More important is the accusation in the second part of the comment. You have to realize that this entire article is one big excerpt of Schama's book Patriots and Liberators. I follow his narrative rather closely and in excerpting his story I also use many of his value judgments, which he undoubtedly (as any historian) expresses in this work. I do admit that I share those value judgments. If the article displays a "bias" (which I deny it does more than usually in these cases) I take it from Schama (as a check of my references will bear out). Does this mean that I or Schama criticise "political conservatism?" Not at all. In the first place what "political conservatism" do you mean? Present-day conservatism in this context would be a complete anachronism; everybody in those days was "conservative" in the modern sense in those days. But this is of course a straw rider. You probably mean: do Schama and I take sides in favor of the reformers and against the opponents of reform (in this case of the federalist Old Republic)? Up to a point that may be the case, but I don't think more so than for instance most American historians do when they give short shrift to American "Tories" in histories of the American Revolution. We are entitled to our opinions. I don't think there are many people in the Netherlands who still think the federalists should have "won." One may overdo one's impartiality. The last sentence you quote uses the word "conservative" in the generic, dictionary sense, as I think is clear from the context. I do not see how one could interpret this pejoratively.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I did refer to conservatism as it applies to this article. I did not mean that you had some bias against modern-day political conservatism. For the most part I feel that this article is a fairly balanced reporting of the facts of the day. Opinions on the value of one party in the historical event do not have a place in an encyclopedia article. All are entitled to their opinions, no question to that. And to a point it is impossible to sift opinions out of history, but where we can we should. I'm not sure what is meant by "one may overdo one's impartiality". I obviously am not very familiar with this subject so I feel a bit unqualified to determine whether or not the article is being fair to both sides of the issue. If it is then I defer. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Consider capitalization of the word "Republic" when it refers to the Batavian Republic, since it is a proper noun.

Capitalised the one instance I found in this section.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What about in the rest of the article? If you refer to "the Republic" then it is a proper noun and should be capilalized. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Unitary State" section you don't have to go into such detail on how the public debt was being financed, nor (IMO) do you need to outline every source of the debt. It is sufficient to delineate the financial crisis facing the Republic and what was attempted in order to address it. You have a main article cited that goes into some detail on the subject though it seems to stop right at the beginning of the Republic (at least that's my impression from a cursory glance at the article). I would say this section could be significantly trimmed and the information placed in the main article, thereby giving it more of a summary feel.

Even on rereading the section I can't find anything on how the public debt was being financed or what sources there were for that debt. I only gave the distribution of the debt over different parts (Holland vs the rest) or levels (provincial and federal) of the old Republic. This goes to the heart of the unitarist/federalist controversy and its origins and consequences, so I think it is eminently relevant in this context. Could or should it be treated in the "Financial history of the Dutch Republic" article? As the title already indicates, that article treats of the old Dutch Republic, that vanished in 1795. What happened under its successor, the Batavian Republic, at most belongs in the "aftermath" section (where it is cursorily treated, I think). I referred to that article as a general background article, however, because it gives the run-up to the financial problems under the Batavian Republic. In other words, I think that this section belongs in this article and writing a separate article would be overkill in this case. It is not that long.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Unitary State" seems to be a misnomer. This is more about the financial situation of the Republic and I would advocate renaming the section to something that better fits its subject.

I agree that it is a misnomer. Originally I introduced this sub-sub section (in itself awkward in the structure of the article) because you objected in February against a "floating" Main-article reference in the middle of a section. I could not put it at the top of the Uitvoerend Bewind section, so I invented this division. However, that could be undone. Would there be a better solution for the "floating"-reference problem? As far as I am concerned there is no need for a sub-subsection.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no better suggestion, I just felt that the naming of the section did not fully reflect the subject matter, perhaps another name would fit better. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• The final paragraph is good, though again you have a citation at the end of a parenthesis and nothing at the end of the sentence. It is also the only in-line citation in the paragraph, hence the reason that I put a here.

I addressed this concern with two citations, one of which at the end of the paragraph, which I added in response to your latest citation-needed challenge (the one in the middle of the sentence was already in place). I personally do not see a need for two citations so close together. Could they be combined at the end of the paragraph?--Ereunetes (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that's all for me for now. Please take these thoughts as a good faith attempt to make the article better. H1nkles (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to address these concerns and make the appropriate edits, but I noticed that you have started to make extensive edits to the article yourself that you apparently intend to be "textual" only, but that in a number of cases change the meaning in a sometimes subtle way. I do not in all cases agree with those changes in meaning. My impression is that there are two processes going on simultaneously: your review (the remarks above) and your editing. I find it difficult to address both at the same time, also because I am not sure you have finished with your own editing efforts. Any reaction on my part may be premature. So, before I give any reaction to your review concerns, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know when you have finished your edits and have finished enumerating your reviewing points , so I can look at a stable picture.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly a reasonable request and as I stated on your talk page, my edits are made with some ignorance to the subject. I trust that after I have finished my work you will repair any damage I may have done. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the "The Anglo-Russian Expedition of 1799" section you talk about "the war". What war are you referring to? This may seem like an obvious question but it would be good to put in the name here and wikilink it to provide context for the reader.
• The wording in this quote is a bit confusing,

"The new navy was therefore officered by people like Jan Willem de Winter, who were of the correct political hue, but had only limited experience. This directly led to the debacles of the surrender at Saldanha Bay in 1796, and of the Battle of Camperdown in 1797, in which the Batavian navy behaved creditably, but this did not lessen the material losses, and the Republic had to start its naval construction program all over again".

The officers were inexperienced which led to bad performance at these two battles, yet you say the navy behaved creditably. How could they behave creditably if the inexperience of the officers is what led to their defeat? I think you're on the right path here but perhaps making a distinction between the performance of the sailors and the performance of the officers would help clarify things a bit.

• Who are "the Allies"?
• There are some tense issues with this quote, "From the outset, the joint expedition that was now planned (with 13,000 British and 4,500 Russian troops; and a large British fleet) should not be a purely military affair." "Now" and "Should" don't seem to fit since it is in the past tense. Remove now and change should to would? Does that fit your meaning? H1nkles (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Per WP:Quote this quote requires attribution, "Once the Orange standard had been raised, he seems to have believed that the Batavian army would go over to the forces of the Coalition to the last man and that its Republic would collapse under the barest pressure", you cite Schama but you should include his name in the body of the article. H1nkles (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• "...with a scheme in which the Hereditary Prince was to become a kind of constitutional monarch in a constitution on the model of the American Constitution." Too many "constitution" in one sentence, consider using another word or removing at least one.

In view of your wish to shorten the article, I intend to hive off the entire "Anglo-Russion Expedition" section into a new article in the coming week. This will take me a few days. I therefore skip the above comments on this section.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough I think the article will be served by this work. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the section "The Staatsbewind and the Peace of Amiens" I added a to the end of the second paragraph. Need to cite the statement on Huguet.

Citation provided. Incidentally, he is usually referred to as "Sémonville".--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What does this statement mean, "...who had little truck with democracy..."?

With the help of my thesaurus I provided a translation of this Americanism.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are several statements that tend to bely the editor's personal opinions, which border on POV statements. This is an example, "...a reactionary if there ever was one". This statement should be explained. H1nkles (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the good burgomaster from Adam, so there are no personal opinions to be belied. I am following Schama here in his qualifications and now have provided a quote from Schama in a footnote.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating that you knew him personally, what I was saying is that the prose seems to indicate opinion about the individual. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The Battle of Campertown" painting has a clean up tag. It apparently needs an author. This should be addressed.

This is not my work, but I have done this little service as the author was already mentioned on the file-page. I think the person tagging the picture could have taken this little trouble himself.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• You need to input hard dashes (endash) for all the references in which you have a spread of page numbers, for example, 200–205. Some reviewers would fail this article for GA due to lack of compliance with MOS on this ground but I would overlook it as long as I received assurances it would be addressed. H1nkles (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to comply with this Mickey-Mouse requirement? I mean, do you know of a trick to substitute endashes for all "-"'s in references in one go?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mickey-Mouse or not it is an MOS requirement per MOS:ENDASH. There is no script or short cut, trust me I've tried to find one. It's a pain. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I moved the photo of Bonapart at the 18 Brumaire coup up one paragraph because, at least in my browser, it was spilling over into the next section, which isn't advisable per WP:ACCESS. Ok that's it for me, it's after 11 and I have to be up before 7 so I'll return tomorrow (hopefully). H1nkles (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• "...understandable misunderstandings by foreigners..." This is an awkward choice words, consider rewording.

Substituted a synonym for misunderstandings.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• "...ordering those to immediately surrender those colonies to the British 'for preservation'". Those and Those, the subject of the first "those" is unclear, please specify better.

Changed the first "those" to "them"--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The whole paragraph in which these last two statements are found has one citation, currently #61. Is that citation meant to cover all the information in this paragraph? What about the information that follows the in-line cite? Please clarify.

Note 61 has become note 66 by now; it only covered the Kew Letters. I have supplied an additional reference for the entire paragraph concerning the indemnity.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Who is William and why were the Prussians his champions?

Changed "William" to "the former stadtholder" and supplied an explanation in a footnote for the interest the Prussians took in his personal welfare.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please either explain the following words, "perquisites and sinecures" or at least wikilink them if there are articles.

Supplied wikilinks, as suggested.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• This whole section is immense and should be broken up for easier digestion. More on that later.
• "Of course, it was all a fantasy on Napoleon's part, but this did not diminish the real burden it imposed on the finances of the Republic, and on its economy." No citation for this sentence and it isn't good to use terms like "of course" in an encyclopedia article. I've removed other instances but I'll keep this in for your reference. It's unnecessary puff and in this case assumes the reader knows it was a fantasy.

Removed two offensive "of courses" and provided the citation to the page where Schama says that it was "of course a fantasy" on Napoleon's part.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The word, "however" is used a lot throughout the article. Rarely is it necessary to use this word and usually it just ends up being superfluous. I'd recommend doing a search through the article for this word and looking critically at each use to make sure it is necessary. I've removed a few myself in my review but more work on that should be done. (Side note: you may roll your eyes at this last comment but if you desire this article to one day be a Featured Article, then these apparently minor concerns are brought up as reasons for reviewers to Strongly Oppose the nomination. I'm speaking from personal experience on this one.)

Duly rolling my eyes in sympathy :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• "As the members of the Staatsbewind, and their cronies" is "cronies" really necessary? Rather POV statement IMO.

Replaced "cronies" with "friends"; if this is insufficient I'll provide a citation to where Schama uses "cronies".--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to understand your use of Schama as the source. In several of the critiques, especially related to opinion/POV issues, you turn back to Schama and support your stand by indicating that Schama said it, then providing a cite from the book. Just because Schama uses a term or a particular word doesn't mean we are justified in putting it into an article. "Cronies" is a negative term and "friends" is less shall we say, opinionated. Just because Schama says, "of course a fantasy on Napolean's part" doesn't mean it goes in the article verbatim. This is not to question Schama's competency or credibility but is instead to say that the writing of a text book is different than the writing of an encyclopedia article. A text book doesn't work well as an encyclopedia article, and it is incumbant upon us to try and translate it so that the budding historian can get a taste of what is going on and then, if s/he so chooses, s/he can dig deeper by going to Schama and other historians. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You specifically asked me to reply to this comment, but it unfortunately addresses two issues, the minor one of the use of the word "cronies" (which I have replaced with "friends, so I think this is now moot) and the more important one of my use of the book of Schama, which you criticize in this comment. I think that I already addressed that point, so I am in danger of repeating myself. I understand that it is your intent to debate the principle, so I'll copy and paste the relevant comments to the bottom of the page to put everything together.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your use of dates is awkward. For example, "This was the last straw for the Staatsbewind who forbade any Batavian official on November 23, 1804, to take orders from the French". Usually the date, if it is truly necessary (I'll address that later as well), would come early in the sentence. H1nkles (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I broke up the sentence and put the date at the front of the second sentence. However (oops), the date is important here.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the "The last Grand Pensionary and the end of the Republic" section you use the term, "the Great Man", I assume you're referring to Napolean but it isn't entirely clear from the context of the sentence.

Replaced "the Great Man" with "Napoleon."--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The location of the date in this sentence, "...the first Dutch system of public administration was founded by the local government law of July, 1805" is confusing.

Reworked the sentence though I thought that "local-government law of July, 1805" was clear.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The very zeal of the program might betoken a renascent nationalism that might work against French interests." Might and might and the issue of tense here. The sentence before is past, and the sentence after is past but this sentence is present tense.

Isn't "might" the past tense of "may?" However, to anticipate your nexr objection I replaced the second "might" with "could."--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• How is the "Boulogne flotilla" an economy? I'm not sure what is meant by this statement, "The Dutch now began to clamor for economies in the form of the return of the Boulogne flotilla..."

Your quote already says "the return of the Boulogne flotilla"; why can't this be an economy, as it saves on the upkeep of this flotilla?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Might there be such a position in the Netherlands for his brother Louis Bonaparte?" It's not good to insert questions in an encyclopedia article. This is a literary device that is reserved for novels and text books rather than the reporting style of an encyclopedia. H1nkles (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Substituted a non-novelistic phrase for the one cited here.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I almost missed this, because my watchlist didn't work again. Before I go into any of this and the copy edits you have made (a number of which I'd like to revert) are you finished now? It would not be very productive if I started to work on the article while you are still busy. Otherwise, I don't mind waiting, of course. There is no hurry. I just want to be clear.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• The in the final Historiographical note section is a legitimate question. See here if you are unfamiliar with weasel words.

I don't deny that it was a legitimate question; I just hadn't seen it before, as I hadn't revisited this section for a long time. I have rephrased, to hide behind Schama, whose fault all of this is :-) But I think this historiographical section (an excerpt of Schama's "Introduction" chapter) offers important background information for the article.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The final paragraph, "In view of the ideological legacy, it has been difficult to find a fair and balanced description of the Republic's difficult years of existence." is a stub and should either be expanded or combined.

This was my opinion, though it was based on Schama's somewhat speculative exposition on the reasons for the lack of both English and Dutch historical works on both the Batavian Republic and the Kingdom of Holland. On reflection I prefer to delete the sentence to expanding it.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am finished with the review. I have further overarching comments to make, which will follow. I am done with editing of the article so please revert away. H1nkles (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC) The above review is obviously a word-for-word read-through of the article. Some of the concerns are straight from the MOS and others are my own opinions and insights. You are welcome to discuss and debate any of the issues I have raised. I do not feel that every line has to be addressed as I have outlined it in order to pass GA. I would like to give you some "big picture" thoughts on the article for what it's worth. The following thoughts are given with the assumption that you intend to move this article forward to FA consideration at some point. I have two critiques of the article, one is that several terms are mentioned with little or no explanation. I listed some above, but examples would include, "Orangist", "Allies", and "unitarists". As a lay reader with little knowledge of early 19th century Dutch politics I found it difficult to navigate through some of the terminology.

The second critique is that at times I felt as though I was reading a text book rather than an encyclopedia article. It goes into far too much detail at certain spots. Examples include the sources of all the debt that the Republic owed. The Anglo-Russian expedition section is very detailed and the "The Staatsbewind and the Peace of Amiens" section is also very long. Sub pages on these issues should be created with the bulk of the text going there and a summary of these topics and how they impacted the Republic would be all that is required for this article.

The above concerns made this article a tough read for me. To ameliorate this I would recommend creating sub articles. I would also recommend breaking up sections into subsections for easier digestion of information. Specifically the The Staatsbewind and the Peace of Amiens section is 14 paragraphs long! That is immense. Break this section in two and create subsections to manage and organize the information more clearly. Then I would go through the article very critically and look for ways to trim out information that is too detailed. Speaking from experience this is hard to do when you are the primary editor. You may want to seek assistance from someone at the Dutch Wikiproject or just another editor who will be merciless. Finally I would submit it to WP:Peer Review for further, impartial review of the article.

If you truly have FA aspirations for this article you will also need to branch out with your sources. Three books and a heavy reliance on Schama is not going to cut it at that level. At the GA level it's fine, especially since Schama is very credible. Going forward though you'll need to get more consensus sources to bolster your research.

I have enjoyed reviewing this article. I hope that you will take to heart what I'm saying in the spirit of good faith. I commend you for the work you have done to help the WP project with an academically sound, well-researched article. I will watch the page and engage in any discussions you may wish to have on particular points. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would like to thank you for all the effort you put in it. I do appreciate it. I have no FA ambitions for the article, especially as you want me to come up with more sources besides Schama whose book I excerpted. The problem is that Schama has been so thorough that he apparently scared away other British historians who might have tried their hands at the subject. There are of course Dutch major sources, but as far as those preceded Schama (like Colenbrander and Geyl), he has already adequately taken them into consideration. I'll start tomorrow on the article as I think you were still busy a few minutes ago: I tried to supply a number of citations as requested in the final section, but couldn't save my work as the section had been edited in the interim. I think I'll start with your copy-edits, as I noticed in the final section that an important section of a sentence had been deleted, so I hope I'll be able to retrieve that (I am not implying that you did that; it may have been an earlier vandal). I have only intermittently looked at those copy-edits, but I notice there are a lot, so I have my work cut out. After I have addressed the copy-edits I'll pause and let you have a look at what I have reverted or rephrased. Only then (when we are agreed on the text) will I start on your concerns as expressed on this page, which will require some major edits of my own. I hope that is agreeable.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall doing any significant sentence redaction. That said I can't say for sure that it wasn't me. Your proposal is fine and I look forward to further collaboration. I wouldn't keep the article from FA just because you only have Shama as a significant source. You can always make your arguments when the issue comes up at FAC. I also hope that my critiques did not discourage any further aspirations you may have for the article. H1nkles (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit was an old one (17 November 2008). It was hidden in a quite innocently looking revision of a number of thumbs near images. It changed fundamentally what I had said in the original text. I noticed, because there was a strange break in a sentence. It just goes to show that the old ideological strife is not dead in the Netherlands. Some people still get hot enough under the collar to introduce sneaky edits. The other unaddressed challenges in the text must be of a later date. I'll get to those in time, as I have no problem with supplying the citations. These are all remarks that can be traced to Schama after all. I did not think them up myself. I have also started on the CE, but had to take care of this first, as it was difficult enough to retrieve my original text.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now finished my reverts of some of your copy edits, only the ones I thought were important, of course. Though we have different ideas about style, I am happy to defer to you. I have given my reasons in the form of "interstitial comments" near the locations of my reverts. These may be removed after they have served their purpose. I also took care of most of the citations needed, except for one that I want to quibble about in the next phase of this review. If you have no problems with these textual changes, I'd like to go on with the more serious stuff you broached above. Please let me know.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits look fine, I know that I am not versed in the nuances of the subject so if some of my edits disrupted the intended meaning I apologize. As far as style goes, my idea is to say what needs to be said as simply as possible. That is why I removed some words that I felt were superfluous, I note that you kept some of my redactions and reverted some of them, this is fine. I don't have the desire to quibble over the necessity of a "therefore" or a "however". I look forward to the next phase of the review and welcome your comments. H1nkles (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Two other comments, regarding removing the word "purge", I wasn't being squeamish about the use of the word but I simply tried to find a synonym to replace it because it had been used twice in the same sentence, which I consider to be redundant (a matter of style). "Vacated" was perhaps not the best word to use but at any rate I wanted to explain that edit. Also the army of "Occupation" seems a bit POV to me. Certainly the Dutch would see it as an occupying force, but wouldn't the French see it more as a force for their "protection"? At any rate, I have no axe to grind on that issue, but I don't think it is "childish", as your interstitial comment put it, to look critically at that wording and support it if it is to be used. H1nkles (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a good thing those comments remained "interstititial":-) I do apologize if I hurt your feelings unintentionally. I'll remove the comments while doing the further editing that is now required, as they were intended for you only. As to that "occupation army": as I intend to explain in a reaction to one of your major comments above, this is one of the many things I lifted verbatim from Schama. There is no "pejorative" intent, either by him or me. The Dutch just had lost a war. The Patriots may have thought they deserved some special consideration for their efforts to deliver the country, but the French revolutionaries decided to insist on their "right of conquest" and all that entailed, like a huge war indemnity (though France started the war itself) and this army of occupation of 25,000. They thought they might need that to secure the country. A nice twist was that they made the Dutch pay for its upkeep. But in view of all that I think the term is justified and does not just reflect "Dutch pique" (though there is that, of course :-) Anyhow, I'll now start on the major edits you required. I'll insert indented comments below yours above as I go along. It'll probably take a few days. I'll give a heads-up when I am finished.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have now finished reacting to your comments, except for the major operation of excising the Anglo-Russian Expedition section, putting that bodily in a new article, and then revising the "Uitvoerend Bewind" section of which it is a part. There are a few other loose ends, as indicated in my comments on your concerns. I would appreciate guidance on those. Meanwhile, please let me know if my edits and replies are satisfactory and if not, whether we could come to an agreement or if the situation is hopeless.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on some of your comments and have looked, in a cursory way, back through the article. I appreciate your efforts, especially at the foundational level, of removing large portions of the Anglo-Russian Expedition. I am not able to check your sources as I do not have Schama's book nor do I have access to it online. I will take your references in good faith. Some of your comments I took issue with and have left notes to that effect but for the most part I feel as though the article is nearing GA standards. I am interested in your take on my observations on your use of Schama as a source. It is under the critique about the use of the term "cronies". I would like to get your opinion on that. More for the sake of discussion rather than as a requirement for passage of the article :}. This has been a long journey and I do feel as though you and I, while at odds from time to time, are making progress towards the common end, which is what this whole process is for. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that we are nearing the final stages. I have excised the section on the Anglo-Russian Invasion of Holland and put that in a new article, that I still have to spruce up a bit, to make it more of a "campaign" article. I have left a few bits and pieces of the old section in place, because they seemed still useful in the Uitvoerend Bewind section. I'll look at this section and see if I can think of a logical way to divide it in subsections (and likewise the Staatsbewind section). Other "loose ends" I'll address near your comments.

I understand you wish to debate me on the proper way to excerpt textbooks for wikipedia articles. I'll be happy to oblige, but I think it is beter to do it here, and not at the "cronies" comment, for reasons I have given there. Instead, I'll copy a few of my and your arguments below and attempt to draw a conclusion.

I started out with: "You have to realize that this entire article is one big excerpt of Schama's book Patriots and Liberators. I follow his narrative rather closely and in excerpting his story I also use many of his value judgments, which he undoubtedly (as any historian) expresses in this work. I do admit that I share those value judgments. If the article displays a "bias" (which I deny it does more than usually in these cases) I take it from Schama (as a check of my references will bear out)...You probably mean: do Schama and I take sides in favor of the reformers and against the opponents of reform (in this case of the federalist Old Republic)? Up to a point that may be the case, but I don't think more so than for instance most American historians do when they give short shrift to American "Tories" in histories of the American Revolution. We are entitled to our opinions."

To which you reply: ":...Opinions on the value of one party in the historical event do not have a place in an encyclopedia article. All are entitled to their opinions, no question to that." And: "Just because Schama uses a term or a particular word doesn't mean we are justified in putting it into an article. "Cronies" is a negative term and "friends" is less shall we say, opinionated. Just because Schama says, "of course a fantasy on Napolean's part" doesn't mean it goes in the article verbatim. This is not to question Schama's competency or credibility but is instead to say that the writing of a text book is different than the writing of an encyclopedia article. A text book doesn't work well as an encyclopedia article, and it is incumbant upon us to try and translate it so that the budding historian can get a taste of what is going on and then, if s/he so chooses, s/he can dig deeper by going to Schama and other historians."

I may misunderstand your meaning, but I get the feeling that you misinterpret what I was saying above. Of course, excerpting does not mean slavishly following the use of words of the author (on the contrary, that would soon lead to copyright problems; I have taken care to rephrase what Schama writes). But I followed the tenor of Schama's comments and sometimes borrowed isolated words and phrases. Let's analyze an example that you take issue with, the characterization of Napoleon's intended invasion of England from Boulogne as a "fantasy." To me that word has the advantage that I don't have to write an extensive explanation in "neutral words" that Napoleon's project stood little chance of success in the best of circumstances; and that most people at the time understood this, including the Batavian government that was forced to contribute to it, and the French naval leadership. The word "fantasy" (used by Schama in this context, without, I think, necessarily a pejorative intent toward Napoleon) therefore serves a useful purpose for me. Something like that goes for "cronies." This word (though itself neutrally meaning "old friends") has the connotation of "cronyism" (i.e. partiality to friends without regard to particular merit or qualifications). I take it your objection was related to this connotation. But I think in the context in which I used it, namely the abuses of the Batavian government for their own and their friends ("cronies") advantage of certain government perquisites, I think it again served this useful "shorthand" function of indicating what was going on, without an extensive explanation. Replacing "cronies" with "friends" has the unintended consequence of taking away this allusion.

To anticipate your next objection: how neutral should we be in an encyclopedic context? Of course we should not slander the dead unnecessarily. So I agree that we should avoid needlessly emotive words. But that does not mean that we should completely avoid value judgments, in my opinion. For instance, I would have difficulty with pretending that the opinion of people who maintained that the government of the Netherlands ought to be in the hands of a self-perpetuating oligarchy is of equal worth as the opinion that governments should be changed on the basis of democratic elections. Or (an example from an entirely different context that I encountered today) that the massacre of the inhabitants of the town of Naarden in 1573 by the Duke of Alba cannot be called "an atrocity." Or that a "neutral term" should be found to replace the word "mutineers" for the seamen who forced admiral Story to surrender the Batavian fleet at the Vlieter in 1799, because they, after all, mutinied to advance a certain political cause. In other words, even in an encyclopedic context we should not shrink from calling a spade a spade (though I readily admit that the experience with "Armenian genocide" should give one pause in this respect; I don't think the Batavian Republic falls in the same category, however). I hope my standpoint is clear, though I admit that very subtle nuances are involved. I think our opinions differ that much, especially as I apparently have succeeded in convincing you that I was not trying to advance personal opinions, but grounded myself in my interpretation of the book I excerpted for this article. We'll probably continue to disagree as to what kind of concrete words are "permissible" in an encyclopedic context.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur that our words often bely a value judgement. Even calling the Holocaust of WWII a "Holocaust" is in itself a value judgement, and even a controversial one is some circles. This is similar to your reference to the Armenian "genocide". My intent is to ensure that the articles I review stay a neutral course as much as possible while still giving an accurate portrayal of the subject. "As much as possible" is the key phrase there.

• On a different note, I will peruse the article a final time and unless I find some glaring fault I will likely pass it to GA. I don't think anyone reading this discourse could fault us for a lack of thoroughness and effort in making the article better. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project and I hope our paths cross again at some point in the future. You have my respect. H1nkles (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm going through the article at a cursory level, since I've already gone through it very carefully. I still think the "The Staatsbewind and the Peace of Amiens" sub section should be broken into sub sub sections. I know this would be a tertiary break, but it is find to do so when warranted, and I feel it is warranted in this case. It is very long and hard to digest as a whole. Being unfamiliar with the subject I wouldn't know where to break it up but there has to be a way to create sub-sections, not a whole new article, just breaking up this section a little bit so the reader can more easily focus on the various subjects discusses. If you do this you may have to move the editorial cartoon over to a right justification per WP:ACCESS, but that's only if it is right underneath a tertiary sub heading. I won't hold up passage to GA on this issue though.

I'll divide up the two sections and take care of a few other loose ends.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also the hard dashes in references with a range of pages (253–258) is required per MOS and as the GA reviewer I have to ask that it be done. As stated previously I won't hold up passage because I know that it is a laborious and tedious task, especially for an article of this size, but it should be done. H1nkles (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This was almost the death–knell, because I was not about to laboriously replace the dashes with ndashes by hand; I mean, life is too short :-) However, I am the proud owner of a Macromedia editor which allows me to find-and-replace text. So I first copied the entire article; than replaced the intra-reference page-dividers with ndashes; copied the new version; and replaced the entire article with this new version. I hope this is useful to future victims. I suppose other text-editors work just as well. I now have to remember to use ndashes in future.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Unitary state section is improved and I like your work on excising the Anglo-Russian portion of the article. H1nkles (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Article meets GA standards in my opinion and as such I have passed it to GA. Those issues that need to be addressed have been outlined immediately above this comment. H1nkles (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your comments and I think we have together wrought an improved product. Thanks very much for all your trouble.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)