Wikipedia:Peer review/Adriaen van der Donck/archive1

Adriaen van der Donck

I really like this guy as a historical character, and would like to give him his due here at Wikipedia. I've been working on this article a lot recently and just thought it would be a good time to get some other eyes on it and see if this could become a FA. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get this to FA standard, I would suggest expanding the lead (see Wikipedia:Lead) ~~and try and find a painting of some form of Adriaen van der Donck to add to the top of the article~~. Early life section is very short. It is looking good so far though! — Wackymacs 09:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying about the lead. I'll get on it.

Unfortunately there's only one portrait traditionally identified with him [1], but apparently it's subject is now disputed. I guess it passed through the hands of some shady art dealers in the past. But I could add it if you still think it'd help. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an enhanced and modified version of that photo to the article for you. :) — Wackymacs 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a nicer one somewhere. It's in the National Gallery, so there's bound to be copies lying around. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points you could mention in an expanded lead is how, if I remember correctly, Russell Shorto champions Van der Donck as one of the unsung heroes of New World representative government. Give a sense of his importance, and perhaps talk about how documents that were only recently translated have enhanced his reputation. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got a start on the lead, but I'm still not satisfied with it. It'll have to wait until I get back from work. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think of the lead section now? Did I hit on everything I should?

As to the early life section, even Shorto's book (which practically drools over every aspect of Van der Donck's life) is mostly interpolation before his applying to Van Renssalaer. I could flesh out the influence of Grotius probably along with religious affiliation and such. We also know about his family background, but I'm not sure how important it is to know that his grandfather was a local hero who helped recapture Breda from Hapsburg forces. Any thoughts? — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across {{Biography}}. Do you think that I should do most of the discussion of his writings in a seperate section as they do? — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the article is fine the way it is currently. — Wackymacs 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of merging in material from a duplicate article at Adriaen Van der Donck that was just pointed out, so the article probably warrants another look. The Early life and leads sections have gotten longer, and the period in Rensselaerwyck has been fleshed out.

Also, question for anyone out there: the article I'm merging from lists quite a lot of references, but nothing is specifically cited. I think I'm just going to move the new non-primary sources to a Further reading section until I take a look at them, but what about the primary sources — should I just go ahead and list his most famous writings? — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]