Talk:New Albion/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style

The hatnote seems ridiculously long and complicated, and can be shortened to just the other uses part in this case, I believe.

Shortened.Hu Nhu (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is a good length for article.

I am glad to hear this as I revised and shortened it some weeks ago.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Hind should get a wikilink

Done.Hu Nhu (talk)

The final sentence of the lead could be rewritten to be both more formal and simple, e.g. "The various avenues of research led to the United States Department of the Interior formally recognizing Drake's landing point to be at Point Reyes, giving a National Historic Landmark designation in October 2012." (Note that California does not need to be repeated again)

Done using the suggested revision. It is much better than what was first written in the article.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could a type of cold war be better explained?

I removed the words type of. They seem unnecessary and there is detail at the end of the sentence which does provide explanation.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First mention of Drake in the body should give his full name (and another wikilink)
- Anything with a wikilink should have it both in the lead (if applicable) and the first time it appears in the main body, and if in an image caption and appropriate

I included Drake's first name at this first mention and wikilinked it. Thank you for the information regarding the wikilinking customs. I was unaware of this practice.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Privateer can be wikilinked

Linked.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing Queen Elizabeth would stand by him is also unusual. This sentence could be rearranged so this is not written as a concluding statement.

Rephrased. I believe this revision flows smoothly and is an improvement.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully there's an appropriate wikilink for the northeast trade winds belt?

I believe I found a suitable wikilink.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up to then may read better as "Before Drake's voyage" or similar.

Changed to Prior to Drake's voyage.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Though I see it's had two peer reviews, I find the general tone to be irregular - in some parts the article is well-written, and in others it is not so, with some of the phrasings reading like rather juvenile summaries. A consistent tone is needed, perhaps a copyedit asking to specifically address this would help, as the article would be stabilized to one editor rather than the voice of many.

I have worked on improving this and believe it reads well now.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence beginning Needing safe haven from further conflict could be rewritten, I think the term "safe haven" particularly should not be used unless sources do. Perhaps "Wanting to avoid conflict with Spain while organizing on-shore, Drake traveled northwest of the main Spanish colonies and further beyond Cabrillo's claims."

Rewrote the sentence. I found the Sugden source and he used the word undisturbed to describe the place Drake desired.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does ...especially safe harbor... really need the 'especially'?

Clearly especially is unnecessary. I rewrote the sentence with other changes.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are in BritEng, is this article in British or American English? This would also be good to define on the page and talk page, because it is a British colonial claim to a place in the US, so overlaps - editors could have differing opinions on which is most appropriate and edit war over spelling, e.g.

I added the note about British English at the top of the Talk page (sorry that I do not know the proper word for the section at the top of the Talk page), and I will seek one who is particularly adept at British English to look at the article for any changes to the language.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this first section, I'm not sure 'Background' is suitable for all of it - background would be why Drake went there; everything after the first two paragraphs & first sentence of the third paragraph, up to the fifth paragraph is about the History of the area. The fifth paragraph and everything after it is about the British response and claim. This should really be three sections.

I included multiple sections.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBC
As an overall article note, I also feel it desperately needs some restructuring. The "Other ideas suggesting alternative locations" could easily be merged into the end of the "Site recognition and identification" section, which should itself be made more chronological by moving the official recognition subsection into the 21st century subsection - the earlier identification subsection currently with three centuries listed in the title can be renamed 'Early identifications'. Drake's Plate of Brass section should be made into a subsection up in the History section, as it is about him claiming the land.

I struggled with the plate of brass, Kingsif, and I could not determine how to reconcile the matter you identify. Then I realized the problem: the plate of brass in this article is not Drake's plate: it is a hoax that gained much notoriety over the years. So, I will work on this section from the perspective of a hoax.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restructured this section Kingsif. I did leave the three centuries first listed as the are instead of following your suggestion of using the word ″early″. I believe that listing the centuries provides useful detail and that ″Early identifications″ is vague. So please consider this. I also moved the official recognition; however, I listed it under a heading separate from 21st century ″identification″. The official recognition is distinctive, so I gave it a special subsection. It does accompany the 21st century subsection by following it. Thus a chronological order is preserved. What are your thoughts regarding this?Hu Nhu (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the first subsections as you suggested: Early identification. However, this is without the plural as you suggested, and then when viewing it in context of the entire section, I realized that the plural should be consistently applied to the other subsections for both style and factual accuracy. Consequently, I did so.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fail plenty work, starting with the tone.

Coverage

TBD

There is too much detail on the Miwok people outside of their interactions with Drake at New Albion. Kingsif (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kingsif. I am wondering if there might be room for information regarding the Coast Miwok people if it were properly presented. While examining wp:FA examples to assist my article revision, I found this HERE. You may see a section about this location's ethnohistory. I believe it may be relevant to the article in addition to the Coast Miwok's contact with Drake. Perhaps the heading of Coast Miwok and subheadings of Ethnohistory and Contact with Drake which would, of course, include salient information. (They would also not be italicized, I do so here so that you may easily distinguish them from the other text.) This would require that I examine the sources listed in the article regarding these matters to adequately compose the section; however, I believe much of this information is relevant and it would entail a reasonable amount of researching effort on my part. Please let me know of your thoughts regarding this idea.20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Hu Nhu (talk)

@Hu Nhu: If it's relevant to the ethnohistory, is there no article about the region in general? This being about New Albion specifically is a particular period in history, not just the geographic location completely. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kingsif. I believe I understand the ethnohistory and why it doe not really fit here: New Albion is not really so relevant to the ethnohistory of the Coast Miwok. Is my understanding correct? If so, I concur. And as I read the section on the Coast Miwok, the first three paragraphs are mostly about the Coast Miwok, not Drake's interactions. Please let me know if I have the proper understanding, and is so, I will address the matter in further editing. And again, thank you for your kind attention and patient explanations.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hu Nhu: Yes, that's about it. If there's a Coast Miwok article, or the relevant California locale with an article, the ethnohistory may be more appropriate there. Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kingsif And regarding an alternative to raid, I finally went with actions. In the paragraph context, it is accurately descriptive and neutral.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The repeated use of "raid" seems to be just thrown in, and this almost careless use could be seen as bias against Drake - especially considering the politics of the time when he was considered a hero for these 'raids'. Written better, this should read more neutrally.

Hello Kingsif. Well maybe, but I wonder if the use of raid (as it reads now it is only used once) is perhaps appropriate. Please consider the Doolittle Raid HERE. Doolittle was also considered a hero and recognized as such by the American people, his government, and resented by the Japanese. Drake a hero to his people and government and resented by the Spaniards. I believe there is an appropriate parallel. Your thoughts, please. And thank you for the kind attention you have provided thus far.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a reference HERE, a professional paper, which used the word sacking to describe Drake's actions in Spanish colonies.Hu Nhu (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hu Nhu: "Sacking" seems more neutral - raid implies (in my understanding, at least) a negative motivation. Sacking seems objective for the same actions. Kingsif (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to use sacking. It fits well Drake's actions.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBC

Verifiability

Sentence mentioning Sir Francis Drake Boulevard needs a citation
Everything else that should be cited is.
Sources all good.
Needs attention one citation needed, otherwise fine.

Added.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the citation source I added regarding the boulevard: https://www.tam.ca.gov/richmond-san-rafael-bridge-improvements/, article title Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Improvements. And I added another source to the Background influences section: https://www.discoveringnovaalbion.org/strait-of-anian,article title: What and where was the Strait of Anian?Hu Nhu (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

The map does not need to be in the infobox - a more timely engraving is already present and the text of Nova Albion is so small that it is invisible at wiki size and even at preview size. An interactive map or pin map pointing out Point Reyes as the site would be more useful in the infobox; the infobox is so short these may also make it too image-heavy.

I see what you mean about the map containing text too small to be useful. That was my doing to put it in the info box. I hesitated to put a pin-point map in the Info box because of the uncertain, never defined boundaries of New Albion. However, I can see such a map as useful if it were labeled as Drake's landing and NHL site. What are your thoughts about this, Kingsif? Before I do anything with it, I'd like to hear from you Hu Nhu (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be useful. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right--I have contacted the Teahouse inquiring how to make this edit. They have always been very helpful to me, and while I am uncertain as to the editing process, I'm sure they will be of much assistance. I like the infobox on the Jamestown Virginia article and will pattern the New Albion one after it.

The pin map has been inserted with the help of a Teahouse host. I've double checked the coordinates with an online coordinate map, and the shown coordinates are precise.Hu Nhu (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, give my thanks to the Teahouse help! Kingsif (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox otherwise good, as brief but complete as seems appropriate.

I know the infobox is brief, but I too am not sure there is any further information to include. And, I could not find a similar article and subject with an infobox example that seemed comparable. Elizabeth Island (Cape Horn) was Drake's only other claim, and it has no infobox. Hu Nhu (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of maps and location images throughout the article also good.

I saw that this was a comment in an earlier review. Other than the infobox map, I too like the choices.Hu Nhu (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other images seem relevant to topics
The use of recent climate data table is interesting - the article is about an historic place that didn't exist between 2006 and 2015, so I would reconsider the inclusion of this.
Needs attention Some things to consider removing.

Stability

History looks clean
Pass

Copyright

Some very close paraphrasing shown here (paragraph in article: This district, a nationally significant distinction, provides material evidence of one of the earliest instances of interaction between native people and European explorers on the west coast of what is now the United States of America. This distinction is based on the two historical encounters, Sir Francis Drake's 1579 California landing and the 1595 Manila galleon shipwreck, San Agustin, which was commanded by Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño.)
Some other sentences are copied wholesale, most notably from here and here.

Hello Kingsif. I believe I've adequately addressed the first instance of close paraphrasing/copyright problems. I am unable to access the the other two you identify with links. However, perhaps it is not necessary that I do. I am able to discern that the items in question regard the Coast Miwok and flora which I a may entirely delete.

Copyvio check otherwise looks fine.
Fail Needs clean-up.

Overall

Opening review with the technical side, will continue. Kingsif (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, so I'm going to take a break here - from having read to halfway through the background section, I feel the inconsistent tone problem is going to appear throughout, and I'd really like that to be fixed! This involves rewriting a bunch of the content, so hopefully the content will be great after that! Kingsif (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hu Nhu: Reading it over, I still think the 17th, 18th, 19th century header could be a lot shorter. I've edited some of the headers. There's now also a lot of harv errors, which need to be resolved. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif:: I will look at the harv errors and address compaction of the headers in question. You've been of much help, and I appreciate all you have done.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I wish to improve the Plate of Brass section. Thank you for your kind patience.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Hu Nhu, Kingsif, where does this stand now? A "Note" on the nomination says that Hu Nhu was going to be in internet-scarce areas until late March; with three days to go, can this finally be resumed? (I see some recent edits.) The review has been open for three and a half months; it would be nice if it could be concluded in the next week or two. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - some big changes have been made, I keep following it. It's looking much more solid. I've left it open per the note, will read the revised article as a whole soon. Kingsif (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlueMoonset and Kingsif. After dealing with some complications due to travel bans, I have been home for a few days now. I will be able to attend to it much better now, especially regarding the Plate of Brass section as I require a reference item I did not have in my other country.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you BlueMoonset and Kingsif for your kind patience.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status as of March 30

Hello Kingsif. I have edited the article today and addressed the section: Plate of Brass hoax. I will look at the harv errors you mention. An initial perusal indicates that there are references not used which exist. I will go through this in detail. I am uncertain what to look for other than that. This is due to my relative lack of editing experience. For what should I be looking to address other harv errors?Hu Nhu (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a user script by Uchua that highlights harv errors - if there's a reference that isn't used in the article, it can just be removed. But when there's citations in the article that don't point to a reference, the right source needs to be found and added. Sometimes it's just a typo that causes them, though. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kingsif. I did not find the user script by Uchua and so edited without. My partner and I discovered several references listed that were no longer salient to the article and the Simon Cassels journal article was incorrectly listed in the reference section as 2013 while correctly listed by the inline citations as 2003. I believe the citations and references are now entirely correct. What are my next steps?Hu Nhu (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hu Nhu: There's still one source that doesn't seem to be used - the Torben, Rick; Braje, Todd; Wake, Thomas; Sanchez, Gabriel; DeLong, Robert; Lightfoot, Kent? After this, I will read the article over and see if there are more comments after the edits. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Kingsif. I rectified the problem and made the entry consistent with another (Davis, Loren) which also has multiple authors. Thank you, again, for your assistance and review.

@Hu Nhu: Looks good, nice work. A quick read shows no more issues, so this can be promoted Kingsif (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness Kingsif! I am utterly thrilled. I am so appreciative of all you've done to assist me with this article. You've been both technically helpful and personally very considerate. I hope you do not mind an occasional question that may come about regarding ideas for further improvement. Thank you again so very much.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hu Nhu: Not at all, ask away - but at a talk page, not here. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Kingsif. I imagine (but do not know) that this page will be archived soon.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.