Talk:Belitung shipwreck/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll read through and start on the review later today. Looks like an interesting article though! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done some more, and have got about a third through the copy-editing bit. I'm off now for a few days with work, but I'll aim to finish this off on Friday. Sorry for the slight hiatus; it is a really interesting topic though. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, remainder of the text points done below. Be interested in your thoughts.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through and tried to strike through the ones I think have been dealt with (NB: I may have missed some - feel free to strike through if I have!). The remaining ones really tie into the question of what to do about the latest Shipwreck volume on the site.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good - happy to pass at GA! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

*"The Belitung shipwreck[1][2] (also called the Tang shipwreck or Batu Hitam shipwreck) was an Arabian dhow which sailed from Africa to China around 830 AD." - The "was an Arabian dhow" sounded odd to me - how about "refers to an Arabian dhow which...". That way there's no possible confusion that the Belitung was the name of the ship.

"The Belitung shipwreck[1][2] (also called the Tang shipwreck or Batu Hitam shipwreck) is the wreck of an Arabian dhow which sailed a route from China to Arabia around 830 AD." - would this be more acceptable?

Amended

• "It is unclear why the ship was so far from its expected most probable route from China:[4] through the South China Sea, past the southern Vietnam coast and then turning north-west through the Singapore Strait into the Straits of Malacca (between Peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra)." "expected most probable" sounded redundant at first glance, although thinking about it, I had second thoughts. To make it clearer, how about something like: "Most ships would have reached China by travelling through the South China Sea... Belitung is some distance from this route, and it is unclear how the vessel came to be in this area..." ?

"It is unclear why the ship was so far from its expected route, as most ships leaving China for Arabia would have sailed through the South China Sea—turning north-west after passing southern Vietnam, and continuing through the Singapore Strait into the Straits of Malacca (between Peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra). Belitung is some distance from this route, and it is unclear how the vessel came to be in this area..." - would this be better?

Amended into a new subsection, lead cut down and also amended

• The first bit says it was travelling to China, the next bit notes the "route from China" - is this deliberate, as it feels wrong.

Is this covered by the first amendment? (lol no pun intended!) The ship was Arabian, and so must have first left Arabia on the Africa-India-China routes, it had a Chinese cargo and so was returning from China.

I found this much version all much clearer - looked good to me.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

amended

• This section on the probable route also needs to be in the main text.

Will move once modified text is agreeable

• "The wreck has given us two major discoveries" - in terms of encyclopedic tone, I would avoid the first person ("us").

Amended.

• "The site location was purchased from local fishermen" - purchased by who?

The "local Indonesian company"

• "a local Indonesian company" - do we know who they were?

No, as yet I have been unable to ascertain the company name. The National Geographic, Sackler/Smithsonian and Walterfang sites do not name them, nor do the Flecker reports. I have carried out extensive searches through Google books and news but have still to discover their name. The briefing paper [1] had the most information to date "The license was issued to a limited liability salvage company organized under the laws of the Republic of Indonesia, for a period of five years. The licensee executed a contract of cooperation with Seabed Explorations GbR, a German excavation company led by Tilman Walterfang, to facilitate the salvage and recovery."

I'd suggest you might add a footnote, saying that the company was unnamed in the reporting - that way, it's clear that we're not being biased towards the Western partners in the deal. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, by footnote, I meant a nb type of footnote rather than a citation (e.g. "The local company has not been named in the media.")

Added nb

• " financed and excavated in cooperation " - were both the financing and the excavation in cooperation, or was it just the excavation? (it could mean either as written)

Amended to: "The dig was subsequently financed and excavated by Tilman Walterfang and his team at Seabed Explorations, under a license of co-operation with the original salvage company,[6][7] and after a request from the Indonesian Government..."

• " monsoon season" - worth linking.

Linked

• "The dhow was " - "The sunken dhow was..." would avoid any risk that the reader thinks you are describing a typical dhow here. (This is the first time you've said it was a dhow in the main text, by the way)

Amended

• "it is the only Arabian ship of its type discovered, and its planks were sewn together using a thin rope made of coconut fibres, rather than using the more traditional methods of pegs or nails" - on the first bit, I wasn't clear what this meant. Do you mean the only Arabian ship from the period discovered by archaeologists? That we've discovered other ones, but this not of this type? etc. I ask, because you then talk about the traditional methods for building such a ship, which sort of implies that we know about how this type of ship was typically made. Did you mean that "it is the only Arabian ship of its type discovered, as its planks were sewn together..."?

It was the only Arabian ship of this type from this period that is known of, and boats of this type were not known to be found in Arabia until much later. Though the treasure is Chinese, the boat is Arabian by all accounts-though some of its wood is Indian. It may have been over-hauled there, or had work carried out there, but it is thought to be Arabian, as evidenced by the chief excavating archaeologist in the conclusions of his reports where he considers both and concludes that it was Arabian. The method of building was thought to only occur on the north-western coast of India, and is how we know about this method of building.

My advice would be to build in some of this text into the article paragraph, as you've explained it really clearly here. As it it stands, the paragraph in the article says it "could be said to be of Arabian or Indian origin", whereas Flecker's 2010 chapter, like your phrasing here, concludes that archaeological work has "removed all doubt" that it comes from the Western Indian ocean, and is Arabian in origin. (BTW: The website link in the reference, by the way, doesn't seem to say anything about the traditional peg and nail building methods; Flecker's 2010 chapter has something on this on page 115, which would be citable.)

I have tried to address this fully, in both the beginning of the section and at the end. It appears that the Seabed Explorations site has changed, so I have used the Sackler Exhibition Catalogue as the ref.

• "worms" - worth linking

Linked

• "This has given us an insight into how ships of this kind were constructed, something which has not been seen before in Asia. " - again, this seems to count against the "traditional methods" discussed earlier in the paragraph. If we haven't seen how ships of this kind were constructed, how do we know what the traditional methods for building them were?

Amended to "This has given us an insight into how ships of this period were constructed—something which has not been seen before as no Arabian ship of this type had previously been found, nor any with their cargo intact" - should not have been Asia, rather Arabia.

• "The ship has been said to be of Arabian or Indian origin" - earlier in the rest of the section you term it just "an Arabian ship" though - this statement about its origins being uncertain doesn't feel consistent with calling it "Arabian" in the rest of the article.

The previously used term "Arabian" is of ownership and probable origin, rather than simply origin. The ship has African wood in it's major timbers (frame), something which casts doubt on an "Indian" origin. I will consider how to clarify.

For now I have amended to "The ship could be said to be of Arabian or Indian origin, as there is little to differentiate between ships of that period from the two areas, though its frame uses a species of tree that is only found in a small part of Africa."

As per the above - Flecker seems to have become more definite in his views since his 2000 article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten some of the section, as well as moving things around to get the original conclusions and 2010 ones into the last paragraph of the "Wood types" section from the start of the "Ship and construction" section. (also as per the other fix three up on this page↑ "I have tried to address this fully")

• Construction techniques - I think you could safely combine the first two paragraphs - they're very short paragraphs otherwise.

Combined

• "Flecker" - I'd advise giving his first name as well, and explaining who he is, e.g. "Michael Flecker, the chief excavating archaeologist at the site, compared..."

Added

• "forestry and products division" - I could be wrong, but is the capitalisation correct? (I'd usually expect a division name to be in capitals).

Capilatised and corrected as per [2].

• "Many of the samples were too badly deteriorated to be positively identified due to the lack of cellulose remaining in the wood cells" - is the lack of cellulose the cause of the deterioration, or the result? As written, it means the former, but I think you mean the latter (the resulting lack of cellulose then being the reason why it can't be analysed).

Amended to "Many of the samples were too badly deteriorated to be positively identified, as the lack of cellulose remaining in the wood cells prevented successful analysis."

• "There are many types of wood which have been positively identified" - I very often get this wrong, but I think it is "that" rather "which" in this sentence.

Amended - I am not sure that it matters in this case, but have amended it to your suggestion just in case. "That" is used with a restrictive clause, something that cannot be removed, "which" in the rest. I use these to remind myself when I am not sure Grammar Girl or Chicago Manual of Style Q&A (though the CMS appears to be down at the moment)

• "There are many types of wood which have been positively identified: teak (Tectona grandis) was used for the through-beams and is resilient to the teredo worm (the Teredinidae family), the ceiling was made from a Cupressus genus which was possibly Cupressus torulosa, the stem-post is made of rosewood from the Leguminosae family (now called the Fabaceae) and either the Dalbergia or Pterocarpus genus. The wooden box found in the stern area of the shipwreck was made from an Artocarpus genus of the Moraceae family, more commonly known as the Mulberry family." Could you simplify any of the Latin phrasing here? If you linked teak, you wouldn't need to say tectona grandis, as that's the common name for teak; the teredo worm link contains the teredinidae info; if you said either "Dalbergia or Pterocarpus rosewood", you wouldn't need to give additional info, etc.? I was trying to think of ways to make it easier to read!

• "Ilic" - as per Flecker above, worth explaining who he/she is. Also worth checking, if we can, if Ilic's views are still current, or if more recent research has made them redundant).

He stopped working there some years ago, all I can really add is "Jugo Ilic of CSIRO, a wood identification specialist" as he now works as R & D Projects Officer at Forest and Wood Products Australia and has his own business "Knowyourwood".

• "The Jewel of Muscat reconstruction" - this is the first time the article mentions this reconstruction or the name the Jewel, so it would be worth explaining what they are. (You do this later in the section in fact)

I am a little confused here, I may have already addressed this issue, as I cannot find that phrase. I have made the first mention into "The Jewel of Muscat reconstruction, a replica made as an exact copy of the wreck, has shown"

• "gets its other names, "Tang shipwreck" or "Tang treasure ship"" - a missing "the" in front of the Tang

Added

• "The ships timbers and artifacts" - "ship's" and "artefacts"

Ship's amended

My OED (two volume edition) uses "Artifact Also arte- An artificial product" while the entry for Artefact says "see Artifact". The online EB uses both variants in different archaeology subjects. To be honest I originally preferred artefact, though after looking in more depth at arte, artificial and artifice etc. it seemed as though it was more sensible to use arti-. There is also the problem of an artefact being a residual interference signal in data.

Arti- is more common in the USA and others, while arte- is (scholarly) more common amongst UK and commonwealth archaeologists. Indeed Google gives around 8 to 1 in favour of arti-. I honestly do not mind either, they both mean the same thing, as there is obviously no connection to data signals here :¬) One problem is that there are a couple of quotes, and both spellings are used in them.

Amended non-quotes to artefacts

Cheers!Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

*"influences, or markets," why "or"? wouldn't "influences and markets" be more accurate?

Amended

• "According to National Geographic: "One bowl was inscribed with five loose vertical lines, interpreted by some scholars as a symbol whose meaning resonates powerfully in today's world: Allah." - the second half of the quote jarred a bit with me as unencyclopedic. Could you just perhaps say that "One bowl was inscribed with five loose vertical lines, interpreted by some scholars as the word "Allah"."?

Yes, but that is a quote and, as it is not mentioned anywhere else that I have seen so far, is possibly only the personal opinion of the writer. I did consider paraphrasing it earlier, but thought that if I turned it into a statement it would surely be poorly ref'd as the article does not quote their source for the "some" part.

Is the writer for Nat Geo a good source in your view (e.g. an academic of some sort)? The reason I ask is that if he is, we could just name him "....interpreted by X as..." If not, and its not a wider view, perhaps we should just remove it.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The writer in question, Simon Worrall, appears to be a feature writer and not academically trained in archaeology. I have searched for a couple of hours now, and cannot find a close match. As a last resort I have emailed Worrall to see if he can point me in the right direction. For now I will remove it and put in a quote about the Arabic script decoration. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find anything else that talks about the Arabic scripts, and in particular nothing about Muslim/Mohammedan/Allah. The problem is that only other mention is Liu p. 154, who talks about the kilns and production area finds interpreted by Chinese scholars originally thought to be Arabic scripts were probably a misinterpretation. This is, of course, not talking about specific artefacts from the Belitung shipwreck, nor other scholars (esp. not Arabic) and so we cannot either prove or disprove the Nat Geo Mag mentions as yet. For now I have removed the Nat Geo Mag quote. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The cargo was described as "the richest and largest consignment of early ninth-century southern Chinese gold and ceramics ever discovered in a single hoard." by John Guy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York" - there's an excess full-stop after hoard.

Not sure about that one, as I thought quotes were punctuated as they are. TO get around any complication I have moved the sentence part after the quote to before it, leaving the quoted period as the last in the whole sentence.

You wouldn't normally add or delete punctuation within a quote (without flagging it up), but you can always finish a quote before a full-stop to allow the text to flow smoothly for the reader. But the new version works fine.

• "The cargo also includes" - you'll want to be consistent in the tense - in the rest of the section, you describe the cargo in the past tense.

Amended

• I'd be inclined to combine the last three paragraphs of this "Tang treasure" section into one - they're very short otherwise.

Made into 2 paras for the whole section

• "something which has given an "unparalleled into China's industrial capacity and global trade". You'll need to attribute the quote in the text, and there's a word missing after "unparalleled".

Added both

• "The Sackler Gallery was due to host the US premiere in early 2012," - as the beginning of a new section, I'd recommend saying the "US premier of the shipwreck exhibition", or something like that, here.

Amended to "was due to host the US premiere exhibition of the Belitung cargo in early 2012—a date set to coincide with the Smithsonian museum's 25th anniversary celebration."

• "a date set to coincide with the Smithsonian museum's 25th anniversary celebration" - this doesn't make sense unless you know that the Sackler Gallery is one of the Smithsonians - if you say "The Smithsonian Sackler Gallery" at the beginning, this would then make this clear.

Added ", part of the Smithsonian Institution," in the opening sentence.

• "The Sackler Gallery has received condemnation" - it will be important to say who's condemned it.

Expanded first para with details

Reads much better, thanks.

• " Proponents of the arguments" -ditto.

As per previous

• "to have caused loss of information" - "a loss of information"?

added the "a"

• "the overall situation would without doubt be described as 'less than ideal'." - excess full stop at the end

Removed

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• All okay. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;

• Enthused by the article, I was having a look at Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds book by the Smithsonian on this shipwreck; most of the chapters seem to be available on line, and it gives additional details going beyond (and sometimes correcting) some of the earlier news reports used in the article. What do you think of it? It looks like it could be quite useful. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have downloaded most of them :¬) The problem was the controversy and the cancelling of the exhibition. It meant that there probably would be a great deal of change on their sites and docs - I figured I would give it some time to settle down (and as I had the GOCE July backlog drive). I also have been in an email discussions over images from the Jewel of Muscat Project; they have kindly provided two pictures, one image of the stitching and one of the ship itself, unfortunately we have not resolved the licence they would like to use as of yet. They are fairly important as the Jewel is an exact replica of the wrecked ship and would be perfect to illustrate it. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence "There are also claim that exhibiting the artefacts would be against international agreements on underwater excavations." is uncited, unless it's covered by fn27, which at first glance would be odd. Either way, I'd be keen to know who were making the claims. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Added an example, Faulk, and some other material. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• Clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Broadly yes, although the Shipwrecked book may have additional themes to pull out (as per our discussion above). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Generally yes. I think there's an issue with the way that "Conventions by international organisations" is placed though. The previous paragraph notes that that some people say that the excavation was quite legal, and others say that it wasn't. We then have this section, which basically lays out the law and says (I summarise!) that it was legal because the law wasn't retrospective, giving the very strong implied impression to me that that one group is right and another wrong. I'm not sure this is the best way to do this. If I can suggest two options:

• If the "excavation was illegal" grouping is substantial, I'd advise that you summarise the conventions section, and place it immediately after the "Proponents of the arguments to display the works claim..." sentence. It's then very clear that you're summarising their argument, not putting forward your own. You can also add a similar sentence or two to support the opposing view. The article doesn't take a side, it's just noting the positions.
• If the "excavation was illegal" grouping is effectively just a fringe theory, then I'd advise you still summarise the conventions section, but present it as "the majority of lawyers believe... ...but a minority argue that...", recognising that we're not comparing theories holding equal weight amongst the international legal community. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The end statement is just illustrating that the UNESCO one is not relevant as it came into being two years after the event, it is certainly not saying anything about legality as that is down to Indonesian law. Would that end comment be better as an nb to earlier text pre-quote, or perhaps amalgamated there, or should I put a similar sentence that summarises the CAMM position? If not then I would find it difficult to include them with the arguments as the UNESCO one is not valid as support for either argument, though it would counter one part of the "against" arguments, whereas the CAMM supports the "against" proponents.

I was trying to simply state the facts of the conventions and let the reader understand why the Smithsonian would remove the exhibition. As far as I am aware neither of these agreements or conventions make it illegal, that being covered by the Indonesians own laws, but the CAMM (ICMM) convention makes it "against principle" and against conventional agreement due to the commercial aspect only, whereas the UNESCO convention would say it should not have been excavated and rather left in situ and something that is generally adopted since that date. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of an nb footnote would be a good one under the circumstances. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed to nb

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

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• A couple of queries on the images. Firstly, would it be possible to put in a map showing where the shipwreck occurred? It would make it easier to quickly visualise the location.

Yes, I should have thought of this earlier really. I will try and organise that later today.

Location map and route-map added (route-map will be moved to the route section as yet to be created) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I should also add some labels to them both, especially the route-map, the seas and straits and I wanted to include a satellite image of the Belitung coast so that I can put a larger "X" on to show exactly where it was found. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Secondly, and this is not a GAR requirement, would the images of the treasures work better if broken up amongst the text? It might just be me, but at the moment they're really nice, but are all clustered in the middle of the article, leaving the rest of the article a bit sparse. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not want them encroaching into other sections, ever hopeful that I would be able to put in pictures of the underwater site and the replica ship and its construction techniques. I was also wary of the article becoming more about the "treasure" than the archaeological aspects of the wreck and the artefacts. It may be that I have been a little over-cautious, but the editor who took those "treasure" pictures has also been involved in placement and choice. I did experiment with two Wikitable methods of hide/show, but this caused errors with the alt= and the alt text, something which I thought I had got around until the other editor changed them two days ago. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)