Talk:Jean-François de Surville/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RGloucester (talk · contribs) 18:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. This will be my first time as a reviewer. I'll do my best. It will be a few days before I start. RGloucester — ☎ 18:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I apologise for the delay before starting this review. This is a very interesting article on an important historical subject. I applaud your work in attempting to bring this article up to the Good Article standard. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   This article is in need of some copyediting. I particularly noticed somewhat erratic comma use. I'll provide specific examples below. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   Following the completion of the work below, changing to "pass". 14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   This article is generally in compliance with the MoS, save for the copyediting mentioned above. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   Following the completion of the work below, changing to "pass". 14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are properly presented, barring a few copyediting issues to be addressed below. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No problems here. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything is sourced, no SYNTH or other OR. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This article does a very good job at portraying the whole life of the subject, as it is relevant in a historical context. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very good use of summary style, and no undue focus on trivialities. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I do not see any neutrality issues. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The article is stable, with no history of dispute. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No obvious issues here. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I really would like an image of the person himself in the article, if that's possible. Judging by a quick Google search, there should be portraits of de Surville that are in the public domain. 18:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any images of him where the original source (a book or periodical I suspect) can be identified so I can apply the appropriate tags with confidence. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, then. Next time I get to the library, I'll see if I can find anything. Changed to "pass". 17:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are a few outstanding issues that need to be dealt with before this can be promoted to GA, but it is certainly on the right track. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback to date, I have made changes/edits in response, see my additional comments above/below. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Following the completion of the work below, changing to "pass". 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyediting

We have a bit of copyediting to do. I'll do a few sections at a time. For now, I'll do the first three. Please ask if you have any questions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• "Born in Brittany, France, Surville joined the French East India Company in 1727 when he was 10 years old"

Rewrite as "...joined the French East India Company when he was ten years old, in 1727"  Done

• "He sailed on voyages in Indian and Chinese waters and in 1740 joined the French Navy"

Rewrite as "...and later joined the French Navy in 1740"  Done

• "re-joined"

Should be "rejoined"  Done

• "He drowned off the coast of Peru on 8 April 1770 while seeking help for the crew of his ship, the St. Jean Baptiste"

Rewrite as "While seeking help for the crew of his ship, St. Jean Baptiste, he drowned off the coast of Peru on 8 April 1770". As a general note, per WP:NC-SHIP, the definite article before the ship's name should be removed throughout the article.  Done

Have actioned these points. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Early life

• "Born on 18 January 1717, Jean-François-Marie de Surville was the son of Jean de Surville, a government official at Port-Louis in Brittany, and his wife, Françoise Mariteau de Roscadec, the daughter of a ship owner"

Rewrite as "...a government official in Port-Louis, Brittany, and his wife, Françoise Mariteau de Roscadec, the daughter of a ship owner"  Done

Have actioned. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Naval career

• (La Marine Royale)

Is there any reason for inclusion of the contemporary French name? I think this parenthetical should be removed, as tangential.  Done

• "He was looked upon favourably by his superiors for his seamanship and leadership and received a wartime commission"

Rewrite as "He was looked upon favourably by his superiors for his seamanship and leadership, and received a wartime commission". However, I'd like some clarity as to what "wartime commission" means. As a layman, I'm not familiar with such terminology. At the least, a Wikilink would be helpful.  Done

• "By 1753, Surville was commander of the Renommée and had made the acquaintance of Marion Dufresne who would later become known for his exploration feats in the Pacific"

Rewrite as "By 1753, Surville was commander of Renommée, and had made the acquaintance of Marion Dufresne, who would later become known for exploring the Pacific". Remove definite article per WP:NC-SHIP, add some commas, and remove "feats" per WP:PEACOCK.  Done

• "In 1759, Surville was awarded the Cross of St. Louis"

"Cross of Saint Louis" per the main article and MOS:SAINTS.  Done

• "At this stage of his life, he was married, having wed Marie Jouaneaulx at Nantes in 1750. The marriage produced two sons, who later joined the French Army"

I find this phrasing awkward. I would suggest reducing the sentence to "He married Marie Jouaneaulx at Nantes in 1750", and rendering the second part as "They had two sons", rather than using the somewhat arcane "produced".  Done

Have actioned these. Please note that over the holiday period here in NZ I purchased a book with information on Surville's naval career; I have used this to expand this section of the article. I have also reordered a bit of the content to make it more chronological. Zawed (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Surville joined the French Navy following the outbreak of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1740 and fought in that conflict"

Rewrite as "Following the outbreak of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1740, Surville joined the French Navy, and fought in that conflict"  Done

• "He was made a prisoner of war in 1745 when the ship was captured by the Royal Navy off Sumatra"

Rewrite as "He was made a prisoner of war in 1745, when the ship was captured by the Royal Navy off Sumatra"  Done

• "He was released and was soon serving aboard Duc de Chartres which transported slaves from West Africa to the Caribbean where it collected molasses for shipping to France"

Rewrite as "After his release, he served aboard Duc de Chartres, which carried slaves from West Africa to the Caribbean, and molasses from the Caribbean to France". Perhaps a link to triangular trade is in order?  Done

• "In 1747 he was given command of Bagatelle and a letter of marque which entitled him to sail as a privateer for France"

Rewrite as "In 1747, he was given command of Bagatelle and a letter of marque, which entitled him to sail as a privateer for France". As a note for future reference, if you use "which", a comma is required before it. If you use "that", you can avoid the comma.  Done

• "On one of his sorties on Bagatelle he was again captured by the Royal Navy and taken to England as a prisoner of war"

Rewrite as "While on one of his sorties on Bagatelle, he was again captured by the Royal Navy and taken to England as a prisoner of war"  Done

• "a privilege for non-aristocratic officers"

What does this "privilege" entail?

Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Renommée"

@Zawed: This presently links to a disambiguation page. Can you specify the correct target, even if it is a red link? RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had to delete the link, none of the ships on that dab page would be the right one. Zawed (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

French India

• "Surville returned to service with the French East India Company"

When exactly did he return to service? Upon his previously mentioned return to France, or in 1765?  Done

• "he facilitated the construction of the St. Jean Baptiste at Port-Louis"

What is meant by "facilitated"? Did he order the construction of the ship? Supervise its construction?  Done

• "650 tons"

What kind of tons? Long tons, short tons, tonnes, &c. Once you've established what kind of "ton", be sure to use a convert template to provide conversions. I expect it's a long ton, in this case, but best to be certain. See MOS:UNIT.

Unfortunately, none of the sources specify what kind of tonne. Not sure how to proceed here. Zawed (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zawed: Having consulted with the editors at the MoS, the best option is what you said below. Write a description based on RS, and omit the tonnage. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Have revised along the lines proposed. Zawed (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Over the next several months, a series of trading voyages along the Indian coast was carried out by Surville"

Rewrite as "Over the next several months, Surville carried out a series of trading voyages along the Indian coast"  Done

• "He was also, for a period of time, deputy governor of Pondicherry, and the likely replacement for Lauriston in the event of the latter's death"

"Period of time" is a bit too vague here. Preferably, you'd find the exact period of time. Otherwise, we can just use "During this time, he also served as the deputy governor of Pondicherry". The part about "likely replacement" can be omitted, as such is implied by his being deputy governor.  Done

• "By late 1768, a commercial expedition to the Philippines was being planned but in the meantime, the French East India Company was undergoing severe financial difficulties; its monopoly in the East Indies was likely to be revoked".

The time frame is too vague. When did the company enter financial difficulties? Before or after the planning the for the Philippines expedition started? Was the expedition an attempt to revive the company's fortunes? I'd propose the following: "By late 1768, however, the French East India Company was undergoing severe financial difficulties, and its monopoly on trade in the East Indies was threatened with revocation". The bit about the Philippines can be added before or after this sentence, depending on when it took place.  Done

• "Davis Land"

Presently, this is piped to Terra Australis, but that article does not mention the name "Davis Land". Can you specify the nature of the relevant terminology?  Done

• "Davis Island"

This appears lower down in the section...I presume it is the same as "Davis Land"...please standardise and clarify, as above.  Done

Exploring the Pacific

• "Attaining the coast of Santa Isabel, in the Solomons, on 7 October 1769, they received a hostile reception at their first anchorage, which they named Port Praslin"

What does "attaining the coast" mean? I presume what is meant is that they claimed a piece of land, and established a foothold there. After that's cleared up, we'll rewrite the sentence.  Done

• "The weather deteriorated and the ship rounded North Cape on 16 December. As it did so, the French passed James Cook's Endeavour, with neither ship sighting the other due to the bad weather. Surprisingly, both Surville and Cook were navigating New Zealand waters at the same time, the only Europeans to do so since Abel Tasman, a century earlier"

Rewrite as "On 16 December, the ship rounded the North Cape, passing near to James Cook's Endeavour, which had also been sailing in the area. Neither ship was able to sight the other because of poor weather conditions. Surville and Cook, the first Europeans to navigate New Zealand waters since Abel Tasman's voyage a century earlier, coincidentally sailed through the same area at the same time"  Done

• "Going ashore the next day, Surville with some sailors and soldiers were greeted by a Māori chief who showed them to a source of water. The French were also given cresses and celery"

Rewrite as "Surville, along with some sailors and soldiers, went ashore on the next day. The party was greeted by a Māori chief, who showed them to a source of water, and gave them cresses and celery"  Done

• "Relations with the Māori began to deteriorate. In ignorance, in their actions with the locals, the French made some cultural blunders that would have caused offence to the local population; Surville touched the head of a chief, normally considered tapu, when presenting a gift of a white feather. In addition the bodies of those that died from scurvy had been thrown overboard into the bay, a custom normal to the French but disrespectful to the Māori, who fished the area. There may also been concern among the local Māori about the amount of food resources that the French were taking"

Rewrite this paragraph so that the actions that led to the deterioration are stated first. That is to say, write it in the usual form of "cause and effect".  Done

• "Surville, distressed by the loss of the anchors and the yawl, which jeopardised plans for further exploration of the area, went ashore with two officers, and some sailors went ashore to fish with a seine fishing net on 30 December. They were invited to a village by a local chief and shared a meal before returning to the ship"

I've made slight changes to this sentence, but I realised mid-way that it is somewhat ambiguous. Surville went ashore with officers, and sailors went ashore. Did they go together, or separately? Who discovered the yawl, the sailors or Surville's party? Who was invited to the village, Surville or the sailors?

Have reworked this section, hopefully it is clearer now. Zawed (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Voyage to South America

• "They attained the settlement of Chilca"

What does "attained" mean? Rewrite in plain English.

Legacy

• "It provided further evidence that there was no large continent in the South Pacific"

I feel this is strange. There is a large continent in the common man's definition of the South Pacific...Australia. Can this be clarified?

This is referring to Terra Australis which I had linked via "large continent". I have rephrased this to be more explicit. Zawed (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Cap Surville [sic]"

No need for the sic. "Cap Surville" is the standard way the name would be represented in French. It's not an error, simply usage in a different language. Italicise it as cap Surville instead.  Done

Definite article before ship name

Please remove all instances of the definite article ('the') before the names of ships, per WP:NC-SHIP.

References

• Presently, the reference information for the Dumore article in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and the "De Surville's anchor" article is incorrectly located in the inline citation. Please move the reference information to the references section, and add normal inline citations. Advice on how to do this for sources that are not the usual book type can be found at Template:Harvard citation documentation. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

In WP MilHist where I do the majority of my editing, it seems to be acceptable to have webcites in the notes section rather than in the references. I wasn't too sure how to implement this change anyway but have opted to replace with book sources (one is the print equivalent of the online source).

For webpages with authors, one does it the same way as one does a book. For webpages without authors, if you look at the "No author name in citation template" section of the Template:Harvard citation documentation page, that should explain how it should be done. One just uses some alternative identifying feature, like the publisher or work name. In any case, what you've done is satisfactory. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

RGloucester Thanks for the additional comments/suggestions, which I have incorporated where I can. The only outstanding point that I am not certain how to resolve is the tonnage. I could rephrase to delete the size of the ship and refer to her being a large merchant which would be supported by the source. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your hard work. I'll be adding more comments later today. RGloucester — ☎ 07:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

RGloucester thank you for your extensive copyediting here, I hope it wasn't too onerous. I have responded to your remaining points above. Zawed (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's been my pleasure to review this article. Having just read through the article again, I'm satisfied that it now meets the GA criteria. Thank you again for your hard work. RGloucester — ☎ 14:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)