Talk:Archaic globalization/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm going to be reviewing this article for good article status. If I've read your talk page comments correctly, it looks like you're not quite ready for a review, so I'll hold off until you would like me to start. I have watchlisted both this page and the talk page of the article, so feel free to let me know in either spot that you are ready for the review to start. Just as a first comment, taking care of all of the tags and responding to the various comments that outside editors have left on the talk page are two things that you should concentrate on initially. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning the review. We can wait to see if the student-editors have any preferences on which day they'd like to see your review; according to the assignment guidelines they should be ready to receive your feedback at any point now. If over the next few days you could review the article, it would be great; part of the assignment is to improve the article based on the Good Article Reviewer comments. The assignment ends around the 20th June, after which little further editing is likely to occur as part of the assignment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I am not seeing any requests for extension, I'd suggest a preliminary review soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary review

Here are some preliminary comments. I've gotten a bit busy, so my apologies if the review comes up in sections - feel free to work on the comments I've put up so far, and I'll just add on to the end.

• The "page needed" tags need to be taken care of.
• Ref #7 (Oxford English Dictionary) needs more information. Which edition of the dictionary? Which year? Etc.
• Why are named references not used? They're editor preference, but they tend to make the references cleaner.
• Modern globalization section, "Noteworthy, is the affect of the world wide web. The invention of the Internet drastically increased the reaches of globalization." - needs a reference; who says it's noteworthy?
• The "World systems theory from archaic globalization perspective" section needs referencing. The article says "Many argue" - who are the many? Why should we listen to them?
• Lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD, 2-3 paragraphs would be appropriate. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, but not include new information.
• Similar references should preferably be formatted the same. For instance, references 1, 47 and 53 are all to the same book, but are all formatted differently.

These are my thoughts for now. I'll do a closer read-through of the prose tomorrow, although I'm concerned from a brief look today that many parts read like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. More later, Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the section "The three principles of archaic globalization", the article says "Alan Bayly claims..." Do other historians agree with this claim? Do they disagree? Are there other theories?

Citation density needs increase. In the para/section "Defining globalization", the same ref is used for three sentences. Why those three? Why not all? Most other paras suffer from the same problem. Another issue (simple to solve) - the paragraphs are too long, break them down into something smaller. Regarding "Bayly claims", unless others disagree with him, there is probably no need to name him in the sentence, ref footnote will do just fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, check out how your colleagues from 2009 developed the Proto-globalization article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the preliminary review. Do you have any specific advice as to how to expand the beginning section but not add too much detail to it? Also, is there specific sections or sentences that seem to read as an essay so that I can look further into correcting this? Bfowler513 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Regarding the lead expansion, think what are the most important points the article makes, and make sure they are covered in the introduction. Regarding essay-like feeling, I think you manage to address this problem; at least I am not seeing much that would raise a red flag for me - would you agree, Dana? A further thought: "Defining globalization" should define "archaic globalization" as a term; it currently does a good job of defining globalization, and archaic - but separately. You can fix this easily by copying the referenced definition from the lead there; then you could remove the reference from the lead. The "The Three Principles of Archaic Globalization" section should probably be merged with it, or moved next to it, at the very least. Seeing as how you are still planning some expansion, I think you are making very good progress with the article; just please don't forget to increase the reference density. PS. This edit addresses a cite request, but it should copy, not move a reference. Check WP:CITE for how to use named references (<ref name=text>ref info</ref> and <ref name=text/> can allow you to reduce the number of code and references on display). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dana! I have made repairs to the paragraphs in regards to essay-like penmanship. Please make direct references to areas which I have missed, though! Sandere0 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Rachel

Continued comments

I was kind of waiting for the rest of the comments above to be taken care of, but the majority of them seem to be done, so I'll add a few more (although some might be repeats):

• Lead - Your teacher is correct above - pick the most important points from the article and summarize them in the lead, while including only information that is in the body. As I said above, for an article of this length, the lead should be 2-3 good paragraphs. Basically, by reading the lead, a reader should be able to have a rather complete overview of the basic points of the topic, and then be able to find detail about these points in the body.
• The essay-style writing looks much better - there were several spots I saw it earlier, but I can't find it now, so I'm assuming it was removed.
• Still some tags - I see a "citation needed", a "who" and several "page needed"s.
• Ref #7 (dictionary.com.) does not support the sentence it's supposed to be referencing, as it mentions nothing about European Hegemony.
• I'm still wondering why named references aren't used - they would clean up the references significantly.

More in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for more suggestions Dana, Im going to look back into it and see if I can fix the references. --Coreyj33 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, Dana, if you think the article has progressed beyond start, perhaps you'd like to reassess it to C or B classes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dana most of the "page needed" tags have been taken care of Ebw7 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

• The lead is better, but could still stand to be longer.
• There should be no spaces between punctuation and references.

I deleted the spacesEbw7 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• References with single pages should say "p.", while references with multiple pages should say "pp."

I took care of the p vs. pp. thing

• Emergence of a world system - Reference #8 does not support this as it does not mention European Hegemony. As far as I can tell, it's just defining Hegemony in general, but the part of the sentence that really needs the reference is "This early form of state interaction comes from the idea of European Hegemony," which is not backed up in any way by the given reference.

I just deleted this sentence, I don't feel that it was that important to the rest of the articleEbw7 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Way too much jumping around in time. For example, take the first three paragraphs of the "Emergence of a world system" section. You go from the 16th and 17th century to the 12th century to the 9th century, back to the 16th century and then begin a new paragraph discussing "These early movements" without giving a reference point for which point in time you're talking about.

I am trying to make this section flow a little betterEbw7 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• The three principles of archaic globalization - This section needs some work. I still have no idea what "universalizing kingship" means, even after reading the section multiple times. Also, words like "despite the" and "finally" are bridge words, used in paragraph prose. The bullet points should either be turned into prose, or the bridge words removed.
• Proto globalization, "ranging within the 17th and 19th centuries." Within = 18th century. Would something like "from the 17th through the 19th centuries" be more accurate?

this has been changedEbw7 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Proto globalization, "Such wars include the French and Indian War and the American Revolutionary War." These examples are rather North America-heavy. Are there any examples from Europe, Asia and Africa?

I added the example of the Anglo-Dutch WarEbw7 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the proto-globalization section feels extremely out of place, as you have been discussing proto-globalization and then suddenly jump back into archaic globalization. Better organization is needed.

This paragraph was moved up to "the emergence of a world system" sectionEbw7 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Modern globalization, "In addition, institutions such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and other international telecommunication companies" The WB and WTO are not int'l telecom companies, so "other" is out of place.

More later... Dana boomer (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)et

Dana, thanks again for your most recent comments. I will try my best to try and fix some of these sections though I amm not the best at this so be leanient with me. Also I did not know that we needed "pp" for multiple pages so I'll go and try to find them to fix too. thanks again.--Coreyj33 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If needed, I can delay grading this article till tomorrow evening. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

More

There were quite a few spots that made me go "what?" - I really don't understand what they are saying:

• Lead, "Actors became connected" You haven't yet described who the actors are - states, kings, organizations, etc?
• Lead, "This type of early communication" what type?
• Lead, "allow it to conform to present day society." What?
• Defining globalization, "The term Archaic can be described as early ideals and functions that were once historically apparent in society but may have disintegrated over time." What?
• Defining globalization, "This is one of the driving forces" Are there others?
• Emergence, "Hopkins main points on archaic globalization can be seen with trade, and diaspora that developed from this, as well as religious ideas and empires that spread throughout the region." What?
• Emergence, "This new interaction amongst states led to interconnections between parts of the world which led to the eventual interdependency amongst these state actors." Redundancy of "inter-"
• Emergence - define mini-globalization
• Economic exchange, "throughout the region" What region?
• Economic exchange, "once the weekly market began to expand from barter to the monetized system required by long-distance trading." Once this happened, then what?
• Economic exchange, "A higher circuit of trade" What?
• Economic exchange, "from outside distant directions" What?
• Economic exchange, "that were not demanded by the local agriculturalists but for markets in their home towns." What?
• Economic exchange, "When the local individuals placed advanced orders, customers from towns of different traders may begin to place order for items in a distant town that their trader can order from their counterpart." What?
• Economic exchange, "This central meeting point, becomes the focus of long-distance trade and how it began to increase." What?
• Expansion, "In order for trade to be able to expand during this early time period, it required" Trade is not sentient, cannot "require" anything.
• Expansion, "motive for exchange" what?
• Spread, "and could not have been aided without them." What?
• Spread, "as valuable on different levels." What?
• Spread, "began in the form of blood ties" What? Does this mean within families?
• Spread, "which had never been apparent in most societies" What wasn't apparent?
• Spread, "Also, this globalization lessened the degree of feudal life by transitioning from self-sufficient society to a money economy." Not understanding the connection here?
• Spread, "Most of the trade connecting North Africa and Europe was controlled by the Middle East, China and India around 1400." Why?
• Spread, "The thirteenth century as well as present day favor luxury items" Centuries cannot favor.
• Spread, "Purchases of luxury items such as these are described as archaic consumption since trade was largely popular for these items as opposed to everyday needs." What?
• Major trade routes, "Baghdad was defeated by the Mongols" Cities cannot be defeated.
• Major trade routes, "as power centers of trading that would be the source of supplies for the merchants caravans and policing the trade routes." What?
• Major trade routes, "cultural backgrounds could meet and cultures could interact." cultural...cultures - redundant.
• Proto-globalization, "to more distinguished expansionism" What?

• This has been changed to "more distinguished expanding routes", which is still unclear. What is a distinguished expanding route?

• Modern globalization, "The evolving beginnings of this period" What?
• Modern globalization, "This began to emerge during the 1500s," Another time jump, since we were just discussing the 19th century.
• Modern globalization, "The introduction of multinational corporations, technology, science," Technology and science were not introduced during this period, they were simply improved upon, as they continue to be today and have been throughout history.

This is the majority of the big issues I found with the article. There are some other minor points I'll post tomorrow morning, but the article should be at least B-class once these (and the remaining issues listed above) are taken care of. Thank you all for your continued work on this, even in spite of my continued delays :) Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just signed on and saw all of these slight errors that neeed to be fixed. I'll try and go through and reword some of these mistakes to make better sense. Other than that I dont know what else we can do. Go easy on us Dana Ha--Coreyj33 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

More

• File:Archai.jpg does not have a proper fair use rationale, and I don't think that it is necessary to have a fair use image in this article. The image is replacable, and being irreplaceable is a key aspect of fair-use policy.
• Does ref #55 actually back up the fact that the Anglo-Dutch War was the result of "a measurable amount of polyethnic regions due to these higher frequency trade routes"? Just because a reference mentions this war doesn't mean that it is an example of the point you are making.
• "abu-lughod, janet (1991). before european hegemony. oxford university press." Please use proper capitalization - this is extremely unencyclopedic.
• I've added a few citation needed and "who" tags.
• Lead, "serving as "break-in-bulk"" What is break-in-bulk?
• Lead, "While long distance trading came with many trials and tribulations, still so much of it went on during this early time period." "Still so much of it" is ungrammatical.
• Lead, "Linking the trade together involved eight interlinked subsystems that were grouped into three large circuits," The lead should be a summary of the body of the article and contain no new information. I don't believe I've seen this information in the body. Also, what are "interlinked subsystems" and "large circuits"?
• Emergence, "During the early exchanges between states" What is considered early?
• Emergence, "There is a 'multi-polar' nature to archaic globalization," At the end of this paragraph, you may want to expand on how this changed with later types of globalization.
• Three principles, "Archaic globalization is comprised of three principles:" From my understanding, archaic globalization is not comprised of these principles. It is, instead, perhaps influenced or based upon these principles, but they do not form the entirety of archaic globalization.
• Three principles, "Despite the vast distances covered by monarchs and their companies, pilgrimages remain one of the greatest global movements of people." I'm assuming this relates to the "expansion of religious movements", but it needs more detail. Pilgrimages are generally the existing followers of a religion traveling to a holy place; the expansion of religion seems to indicate more of a spreading of religion to people who were previously non-believers.

The article is looking much improved from where it was when I first saw it. However, there are still a lot of unclear places and wording that just doesn't make sense. I know that your teacher is planning to grade tonight, and I'm sorry that I didn't get the remainder of this review up until now. However, you guys have done well in responding to the majority of my comments, and the article has gone from a stub to a solid C-class/almost B-class article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The assignment has ended, and I don't expect any further student editing as the motivation (grade) is gone (although it would be a nice surprise). The article has been improved from stub to C-class. Thanks for you assistance, hopefully somebody else can take the points above and improve the article further! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

After waiting another few days, it looks like no more editing is going to be done on this article, so I am failing the GAN. As I said before, the students have done a nice job improving this from stub to C-class, but I feel that there are too many unclear areas and prose issues for it to even be of B-class at this time. I hope, as Piotrus does above, that someone else will come along who has the interest and access to the sources to address the above points - I feel that with access to the sources, improving this article to GA-class would not be very difficult. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)