Talk:Janszoon voyage of 1605–1606/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. To be candid, until you remove all those coordinate templates from the body of the article, I cannot make my way through the article. They are too distracting and prevent the word flow. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate templates now removed. I agree they were ugly.--Grahame (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks. The footnotes were a good solution!

Why is VOC in bold? - it should be in paratheses (VOC) if you are going to use it later to refer to the company.

Fixed.--Grahame (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would make the first couple of sentences in the lead more inclusive, eg

Willem Janszoon made the first recorded European landing on the Australian continent in 1606 in the Duyfken, financed by the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) in Dutch) which had instructed him to explore the coast of New Guinea to look for economic opportunities. He sailed from Banda in 1605 to its south coast and continued down what he thought was a southern extension of New Guinea, but was in fact the western coast of the Cape York Peninsula of northern Queensland.

Fixed.--Grahame (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Banda to Bantam, which on reflection was the VOC base and the real beginning of his trip.--Grahame (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note wikilink for Dutch language.

Noted (but I think it was already there).--Grahame (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did he start at Banda, or from somewhere else, like the Netherlands? Or was he already there?

Yes, he did travel from the Netherlands in 1598 as stated in the voyage section. This article is about the 1606 trip and I thought it unnecessary to put that in the lead, but if you think otherwise I will mention it.--Grahame (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is to "orient" the reader as well as to summarize. I am the "average reader" who comes to the article not knowing specific information. So in that sense, you want to place the reader firmly as to who, what, where, when why etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put a sentence in to the lead to reflect this.--Grahame (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Janszoon’s lost map" - Janszoon's map never recovered from the expedition - or whatever the situation was - he did not lose it himelf, did he?
I have rephrased this "No original logs or charts of Janszoon's voyage have been located, but it is not not known when or how they were lost. Nethertheless a copy was apparently made in about 1670 from Janszoon’s map of his expedition..." in an attempt to clarify.--Grahame (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend removing the heading "Aboriginal oral history" as unnecessary.
Removed.--Grahame (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation in quotations - you have some small errors per WP:MOS#Quotations. I will fix them and you can see what I do.
Amount of quotations - although there is no "rule", much of your article is quotations. It would be better if you could paraphrase some of the quotes to cut down on their length and quantity. Think of keeping the ones that are particularly effective at conveying something that can't be paraphrased without losing the flavor of the wording.
Example: in the "Turnabout" - nearly the whole section is a blockquote. It would be easier to understand if you paraprhased most of the quote.
I have paraphrased most of blockquote; I deleted some of it as extraneous. I have left the aboriginal history as a quote, because although it is interesting and reasonably credible, there is no way of fully authenticating it.--Grahame (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of prose could be improved. Example: "After exploring the coast of Papua the Duyfken rounded Vals Point and crossed the eastern end of the Arafura Sea, without seeing the Torres Strait, into the Gulf of Carpentaria, and on February 26, 1606 made a landfall on the western shore of Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, near the modern town of Weipa at a river that he called the Batavia after the ancient Germanic tribe that the Romans found in the area that is currently the Netherlands, but is now known as the Pennefather River." - This needs rewording to be clearer. Currently it is a run-on sentence - quality of prose could be improved.
I have fixed that particular sentence, although I think its problem is not that it was run-on (which refers to sentences lacking proper conjunctions) but that it has too many clauses for modern tastes and some imprecision in the subjects of some clauses. Please point out other sentences lacking clarity.--Grahame (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes - there needs to be spaces betwee p. (or pp.) and the number. Not sure what is wrong here. You could consider using the Template:Harvard citation no brackets. I'll think more about this.
Fixed, very educative.--Grahame (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FN about separating Notes from Footnotes.
Fixed.--Grahame (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if you could expand a little in the article, so it would contain more detail. From glancing at your references, it seems like there is information that could be added.
Don't understand this quote: "According to Carstenszoon the Batavia River was "... a large river (which in 1606 the men of the yacht Duijfken went up with the boat, on which occasion one of them was killed by the arrows of the natives) ..." - Is the part in parentheses part of the quote? It looks strange.
The parentheses are in the quote, but I have now taken the non parenthetic part out to reduce confusion and because quoting serves no real purpose.--Grahame (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of reference citations, you should be consistent in format and not mix formats, which ever type you choose. See WP:CITE, especially How to format citations.
Fixed, I think.--Grahame (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Willem Janszoon returned to the Netherlands apparently in the belief that the south coast of New Guinea was joined to the land along which he sailed. On the other hand his own chart did not show that he claimed to have continuously followed the coastline where the Torres Strait is found." - I don't understand what this is saying. Page 27 (the ref) just shows a map.
Well I'm just saying that the copy of his map at page 27 doesn't show a continuous coastline, so his map made no claim that Australia and New Guinea were necessarily connected, even if the Dutch opinion came to believe that they were. I should do some more research on this in the coming Australian daytime, though, to footnote the Dutch cartographers beliefs on this.--Grahame (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you are only going on that, then you are engaging in original research. You need a source stating that, as you cannot draw that conclusion yourself for the purposes of citing reliable sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may add more comments later, as I become more familiar with the article. All and all, it looks good and is an interesting piece of history. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I will place this on hold for now. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
I think I led you astray on the first sentence. It is my fault. Read Wikipedia:Lead section. I changed it a little. I think perhaps the Dutch name (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) should go in the article body, where details should go.

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map is desperately needed. I tried to fix the lead, but I realized that I am confused about the locations of Bantam (city), New Guinea, Dutch East Indies, and then Banda Islands, where it turns out Banda is located. So it is hard to understand the needed elements of this voyage. Hope I haven't messed it up. It is a very interesting article. Just needs a little clarifying. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is now very good! Much straightened out. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets context b (focused): Remains focused
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, very interesting process, but it does need a map.--Grahame (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]