Talk:Sydney punchbowls/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting article, and one of its kind at GAN. Happy to review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sainsf I'll be following and working with Jamesmcardle on this nomination to get the article to GA. w.carter-Talk 06:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, everyone is welcome! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: To clarify, the nominator has not worked at all on the article. He was under the impression that a GA nomination should come from an editor not involved in the article. The article is written by another editor, a New South Wales librarian. I came in contact with the article while working on connected subjects and when I saw that it was a GAN, I started to fix up the formatting of it. I'll wait a bit and see how Jamesmcardle will proceed with this. w.carter-Talk 09:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, though of course involved editors will generally nominate articles for GAN. Just note that whoever wants to see this as a GA must make sure that the issues are addressed as soon as possible without unnecessary delay, that can lead to a fail. This article has a lot of potential. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

By "a bit" I mean a day or so. :) If the issues are not addressed by then, I'll start fixing things in earnest. It would be a shame if the GAN was too fail because of time issues. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

W.carter,Sainsf Thank you both! The Sydney Librarian Dyddi is unable to work on the article until begining July. Your very helpful critique is guidance in the meantime and will enable fixing, though some of the background detail is entirely outside my own expertise, so I will certainly appreciate assistance.JamesMcArdle 12:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem Jamesmcardle. If you feel you can't understand a point, I will be happy to explain it to you. Sad that Dyddi won't be able to join us. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Fairly well-written. The following are suggestions per the MOS, for clarity and better presentation. A few parts appear unsourced. I hope this review gives this a major shove toward FAC. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

General

• I think the article should be structured such that the reader knows about the history and origins of the punchbowls, and then about their features and uses.  Fixed (I hope) I rearranged the sections so that the history bit with explanations is first, then the artistic part and last the big panoramas. Explanations in the edit summaries. Will hunt down all the links that may have been placed after first mention now. Hope this is ok.
• You tend to say "Library/Museum punchbowl" at most places. So stick to it throughout the article and don't say, for instance, The SLNSW punchbowl has a view from the eastern side of Sydney Cove whilst the view on the ANMM bowl is from Dawes Point on the western shore ("The harlequin pair", 1st para).  Fixed Excellent point, easier for the reader.
• In one place you write "1821–25", and in many others the format is like "1810–1821". We need some consistency in this.  Fixed The 'long' version is better since some dates are involve 17th and 18th century, like 1760–1820, where the short form cannot be used.

Paraphrasing

• Earwig's copyvio detector shows some close paraphrasing from two websites. Check [1] and [2].
  • Comment: first paraphrasing dealt with as I shortened and moved some of the text to The Rocks article. Also rewrote the text before moving it so as not to cause paraphrasing at that article. All  Fixed. With some of the moving about of the sections and texts and some rewriting the second paraphrasing is now taken care of.

Lead

• Looking at the article length (see WP:MOSLEAD), I would recommend expanding the lead to three good paras so that all the major points of the article are covered.
• I would give the lead a thorough read once this has been done.
  • Comment: I'm saving this until the article is all fixed up and ready.
  • Comment: I jumped in, I hope not prematurely, and noted the Aboriginal motif as it is an unusual feature. However, that it is rare is only implied in the literature - I can't find any refs.JamesMcArdle 00:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you @Jamesmcardle: for jumping in at any time or place. Your help is much appreciated, especially with the spelling and grammar, those are not my strong side since I'm Swedish and English is only my second language. And I know zip about the special language-things that comes with Australian English. w.carter-Talk 08:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• That English is not your native language is not at all obvious...I only wish I could speak any Swedish at all! The intro might mention how the punchbowls represent the trading between Australia and China via India, referencing Nash, M. (2002), The Sydney Cove shipwreck project. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 31: 39–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2002.tb01399.x, but I notice there is already Staniforth, Mark (1996). "Tracing artefact trajectories — following Chinese export porcelain" (PDF). Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 20 (1), who has worked with Nash on the wreck and its porcelain...do you think too much detail for background?

An interesting fact that should be included somehow. Per WP:LEAD the lead is only a summary, or abstract if you like, of the article (for the lazy reader) and it can not contain anything that is not in the article text. As for refs a few more doesn't hurt. :) Ideally the lead should not include any refs either. I'll work these things into the text tonight when I have more time and a calmer environment to edit in (I'm at work now and the boss is glaring...). I'll also have a go at fixing up the lead then. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 10:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've added the Country Trade to the background section since most of the porcelain came to Australia that way. It may seems like some of the info could be redundant here, but since that trade isn't covered anywhere else on the WP (and thus impossible to link to for explanation) even though it was vital for Australia, I think it's only right to give it some space here. The only other articles that speaks of it at all are Country Captain and Chicken curry! Oh, and a brief mention at Austrian East India Company#Colonisation of Delagoa Bay. I've worked on some other articles about the East India trade (such as 1, 2, 3, 4) and this is the first I've heard of it. Thank you James for for bringing it to light. :) Also made sure all the info from the "old" lead is now in the text along with the refs. Time to tackle the lead itself, only I'm too tired to do it all tonight. Until tomorrow, w.carter-Talk 20:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed New lead installed.

Great job by both of you! @W.carter: Please add the time referred to in Its whereabouts were unknown until it appeared in the Newark Museum, someone may add a "when?" tag. That should be the one left to fix before I promote this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The harlequin pair

• You need not include "The harlequin pair" in the title, "Similarities and differences" should do.  Fixed
• What is "famille rose"?  Fixed A common expression in the world of porcelain, now linked
• overglaze enamel and gilding I assume the source for this part is ref. 5? As it is the first ref. mentioned after this part.  Fixed Quite so, ref now duplicated for clarity.
• footring 2.5 cm (0.98 in) The conversion looks a bit too precise. You may consider using the "|sigfig=" parameter.  Fixed
• Say "footring" or "foot ring".  Fixed

Commissioning

• most likely is Henry Colden Antill You should try to identify Antill
  • Comment: Since the sources can't identify who the initial stands for and only guess at their meaning, there is no way for us to do research and indentify it for sure. I think the sentence should stay that way.
• I think ref. 10 would be better placed at the end of the line. I assume it is the source for the line.
  •  Fixed Right!
• Henry Antill was appointed aide-de-camp Just say "Antill".
  •  Fixed
• Source for the last line?
  •  Fixed The line was apparently a comment made by the original writer on this article. Since it's redundant and unsourced, it is removed.

Sydney Cove

• In the case of the Library's punchbowl Until now you have been saying "Library punchbowl", maintain consistency.
  •  Fixed
• by William Charles Wentworth (1790–1872) The years you mention in this form look relevant in other places, to give an idea of when the events might have occurred. But this one does not look relevant, and many be omitted. We know the year when the book was published, and that is what we need. Same for James Wallis (1785?–1858) and Rudolph Ackermann (1764–1834).
  •  Fixed
• Lewin had a close association with Henry Cobden Antill You say "Colden" earlier. Also, you need to say just "Antill" here.
  •  Fixed
• The link for "convicts" does not appear really relevant here.
  •  Fixed Ok, removed. I only added it since I know that the first convicts in Australia have another "standing" there than convicts in other countries.
• Gregory Blaxland, William Lawson and William Charles Wentworth You can just say "Wentworth".
  •  Fixed

Aboriginal group

• For similar reasons as above, I think the years in "Nicolas Baudin (1754–1803)" and "Emperor Napoleon (1804–1815)" should be omitted.
  •  Fixed
• Recent research has indicated "Recent" often sounds vague. Some idea of "when"?
  •  Fixed Found a report that said the study was "published in English for the first time" in 2012. But since another source writes about the same study in 2009 I assume that there is a previous French study from that year. So I've added both sources as refs and hedged the whole thing by writing "around 2009-2012". Hope that's close enough.
• Source for the last line? This line appears a bit misplaced, you describe the people illustrated earlier in the section, not here.
  •  Fixed No written source for this can be found. Probably just the original editors observation (WP:OR). Line is redundant so removed.

Sydney Cove panoramas

• The panorama on the Library's punchbowl "Library", for consistency.
  •  Fixed
• two-storey, yellow, sandstone house, ① built by I think the "①" should come before the comma.
  •  Fixed + the same for the rest of the numbers for consistency.
• Billy or William Blue (1767–1834) was an African-Jamaican who had been given a seven-year sentence in London for stealing raw sugar. This line seems irrelevant to this article. Billy's identity as the Governor's favourite should be enough for our purpose. Also, please link Billy in the earlier line, at first mention.
  •  Fixed Quite correct, the link takes care of the facts about Billy.
• I have a feeling that the descriptions of Rocks district and Fort Phillip are a bit too long. A line or two should do, not paras. Readers can go to the linked articles, because describing these areas is beyond the scope of this article.
  • Comment: Some of that info is not in the article about the Rocks, I'll move that text to the Rocks article and rewrite the section later tonight. No time right now. Cheers!
    •  Fixed Most of the texts moved to their respective articles and texts in this article condensed.
• Are you sure you can not provide a similar extensive description for the Museum punchbowl?
  • Comment: Good point, it would be nice. Apparently the book on these bowls (which I have never seen) focus on the Library bowl, but I'll see what I can whip up from the facts available to me here on the other side of the world. BRB.
    • So  Fixed I did what I could with the pics available, therefore the panorama is slightly different. They could not be cropped more because of the copyright watermark on the center image, but I think we can live with that. Since I don't have any detailed knowledge of Sydney Cove's geography, I could only mark some of the features on the bowl. I recycled the numbers from the Library bowl so as to minimize confusion plus added two new for new features. Also replaced the map. That one was copyrighted and could not be tweaked to represent the second bowl. I made new ones from OpenSourceMap that are completely free. Also turned them so that north is up since this is what readers are used to + easier to compare the views.
• I think it would be better to divide this into two subsections, each dealing with one punchbowl.
  • Comment: Fair point, will do as I fix the above.
    •  Fixed

Function

• What exactly is ref. 53 the source for? — Now ref. 5 or 6 after moving the sections.
  •  Fixed The ref was for the bowls owned by the mayor and bought by the fund. All the – made it hard to read. I've rewritten the text and placed the refs on their right place after commas and full stops. There was also a typo involved, it was discovered by a new editor who only corrected it in one place. Now found and fixed.
• Source for the last line of the 1st para?
  •  Fixed No ref. found. Probably a thought from the original editor. Since it is just a speculation, it's now removed.

Ceramic origin

• For reasons noted earlier, the years in "William Bowyer Honey (1889–1956)" appear unnecessary here.
  •  Fixed
• an expert in Chinese porcelain and author of many books on the subject This description should be enough for Honey. Presently his introduction appears a bit too long.
  •  Fixed Quite right, he probably wouldn't have that job if he wasn't an expert. Removed.
• are extraordinarily rare Place ref. 63 (now ref. 43) at the end of this line if it supports this, else add a source.
  •  Fixed Ref moved since it states that the bowls are extraordinarily rare and important.
• Place ref. 64 (now ref. 44) at the end of the line The Canton System lasted until the defeat of China's Qing dynasty by the British Empire in the first of the Opium Wars in 1842. If, as implied, it is the source for this statement.
  •  Fixed Ref moved and a couple of more added for good measure. (This is my usual kind of articles.)

20th century provenance

• with the support of the Nelson Meers Foundation What exactly is the foundation about?
  •  Fixed Explanation added.
• "James MacDonald (1878–1952)", "William Herbert Ifould (1877–1969)", "Arthur Phillip (1738–1814)", "Peter Frelinghuysen Jr (1916–2011)" – Years appear unnecessary.
  •  Fixed Life years removed, I've kept the years in office since they provide a timeline for the article. Also clarified what they stand for.
• In May 2006, the Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM) Give this full name when you first mention ANMM in the section.
  •  Fixed

The story so far

Hello again Sainsf, I think I have addressed all the points you very rightly made. Much of the text has been reorganized and things added so it would be very nice if you could have a look at it and see what you think of the changes before I tackle the rewriting of the lead section. Comments are very much appreciated. It would also be good to have some input and/or edits from the nominator Jamesmcardle. Since it is his first GAN I don't think he knows that in a GA review you're on the clock as a courtesy to the reviewer who has kindly set aside a week plus of their time for this. I will also continue to hunt down bloopers that have appeared after the rearranging of the sections. If you find some, please correct them or let me know. Cheers! w.carter-Talk 09:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@W.carter: I must thank you for all your efforts on this article. I have left the nominator a message to come here and help a bit if they can. Your efforts have made the article better than ever, and I am confident this will do well even at FAC. Just one thing, I think the Functions section should come a bit later, after some history. You can go ahead with writing the lead, I'm sure you will do even that in the best way. Cheers! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: Thanks, you are too kind. A FAC, huh? Never done one of those. Let's get through this GAN first and then we'll see. I'll be very busy IRL the next 2-3 days, but I will find an hour or so each day to address the remaining issues in the article. Just so you know why I'm not editing as extensively as before. See ya'! w.carter-Talk 12:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for informing, it would save me some unnecessary pings. Not much left to be done though, we will soon see this at FAC. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: While working on the background section, I came across a ref, from the prestigious Smithsonian no less, that (sort of) confirmed a line that had previously been unsourced and therefore removed. I've now tweaked it and put it back. A new section with some very brief background is now in place. Please let me know if you think it is missing something. I'll take a second look at it tomorrow and see if I can spot something too. Good Night! w.carter-Talk 22:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for huge efforts on this article. I'll look through it and see what there may be left to do. JamesMcArdle 00:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf:, @W.carter: I have added some further detail in 'Background' to place these artefacts within ceramic trading history, but in casting around for further references I find that all of the most relevant have been included already, either by @Dyddi:, or through w.carter's thoroughness. 06:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)JamesMcArdle

All done... I think

@Sainsf: and @Jamesmcardle: So a new lead is in place, I think that it covers most of it. I skipped all the titles of the persons mentioned as it would only clutter the lead. AFAIK the practice is to provide links at first mention in the lead as well as in the article, so I've kept the links in the main text. To be on the safe side I've asked for a copy edit of the lead, same as I did for the rest of the text. Thoughts? w.carter-Talk 11:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, I think the article already meets all the GA criteria as far as I can see. Further copyedits are nevertheless always appreciated. I will go ahead and promote this, and advise you guys to go ahead for a peer review to see how this article may fare at FAC. No harm in trying! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Sainsf: & @W.carter: again for doing so much to bring this article up to GA. An exciting, though daunting, learning experience for me. The density and cohesion of information in this article with all the threads that run to and from it make fascinating reading even for the umpteenth time, but especially now having been brought to this standard by expert Wikieditors. The peer review for FAC...well that's another hike up the learning curve for me. With gratitude, and congratulations, JamesMcArdle 12:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's good to hear this from you, Jamesmcardle. You can send this to WP:Peer review (just read the instructions there prior to that). You will get to hear more from other experienced editors and get newer perspectives. There is no pass/fail there, but be sure of improvement to the article. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)