Talk:Great Divergence/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the start of a review up shortly. It's great to see WP being used in so many class projects, including this one. Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, 2-3 paragraphs is appropriate, per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, but should not include any original information that is not present in the body.
   • In places, this reads a lot more like a school essay than an encyclopedia article. For example, in the Possible Efficiency Influencing Factors section, you say "These factors are outlined below." Don't say it, just do it! Also, tie the topic (geography, agriculture, etc) into the paragraph, don't do "geography - discussion".
   • Section headers need some work. All words in section headers should be lowercase except for the first word and any proper nouns. So, "Technological Factors Leading to Divergence " should be "Technological factors leading to divergence", while "Meaning of French Revolution" is correct.
   • The first sentence of the Ideologies section goes back to the school essay feel. It really says nothing, and doesn't really even give a good introduction to the topic. Instead, give a brief introduction (at least 3 to 4 sentences) on what this topic is. Why are ideologies important to the great divergence? How do they relate to each other?
   • The first sentence of the Eighteenth Century Politics and Leadership section is the same way, although slightly better because it gives a feeling (although vague) of why politics were important to the GD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Is there a reason that the ref name feature is not being used in many cases? I see that some references use it, but it could be utilized to combine many more, especially all of the Feenstra refs, as well as a few others.
   • If a reference is used to cite multiple successive sentences, you can just put one reference at the end of the set of sentences. So, if sentences 1, 2, and 3 are all referenced to cite x, just put the reference at the end of sentence three. If each sentence is referenced to a different source, or if sentences 1 and 3 are to the same source but sentence 2 is to a separate source, then you need a ref at the end of each sentence, to show which idea came from which source.
   • Your teacher has noted a few places where page number are needed. While this is not a specific requirement for GA status, it is part of the policy of verifiability.
   • I've added a citation needed tag, accompanied by hidden text that can be removed once the issue is addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • I'm left with a few questions about the specific term "Great Divergence". Who coined the term? How widespread is its use? Are there any synonyms for it, other than "European miracle"?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Are there no more images that could be appropriately used in this article? At the moment, at 28 kb and only one photo, the appearance is of a major wall of text. While images are not required for GA status, and so this issue won't hold up the GA promotion, it would be nice to have the text broken up a bit more with some images that match the topics discussed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a decent start on this topic. There is a bit more work needed, however, before it is of GA status. Above are my initial comments, which does not include a thorough prose review. Once these issues are addressed (or mostly addressed) I will do a more thorough read-through of the prose. Please let me know if you have any questions - I am watching this page so I will see your comments as they appear. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks a ton for reviewing our article. I'm in charge of the technology section and I just went back and fixed some things that you mentioned. If you still find some formatting problems with it, just let me know. Personally I'm a bit shaky on the format for referencing and stuff like that. Otherwise just let me know of any content issues you run into when you review the prose. Thanks, RomanHarlovic (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over our article. My section is politics and leadership; I recently changed the title to lowercase like you mentioned. I'm going to work on my section's overview today.I wanted to add a picture however I couldn't find one that direclty related my topic and the Great Divergence. Again thanks. Kro14 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing our article. I am responsible for the Ideologies section and will work on giving a significant introduction to my section. Thanks!Helgacrane (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All the section titles should now be capitalized properly, I have also coalesced duplicate citations and removed extra unnecessary citations for neighboring sentences. The only citation problem remaining are for 2 Perry sources that do not have page numbers. Kayla, could you please fill those in or post them here and I'll fill it in if you are uncomfortable with citations?

The next thing we need to work on is the lead and figuring out who coined the term 'Great Divergence'. Derekl366 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey i just did the page numbers and when i checked back a minute later they were deleted for some reason. If you wouldn't mind doing it Derek, I would greatly appreciate it. The first paragraph under france pg 251-256 and the second paragraph (napoleon) 264-270. Kro14 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked the editor who reverted you to explain his edit; I think he made an error reverting you - your edit seems correct. I think you can restore your edit without waiting for his response. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. He did write me back, he said my edits were marked as vandalism. It's all fixed now and all my page numbers are up and correct, thanks to Derek's help. Kro14 (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Just to support claim. I did make a comment to his talkpage. His statement above is true. Mr. R00t ^Talk 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It looks like some progress is being made, which is good. The section intros and the overall article introduction are some of the more major issues, however, and they have yet to be addressed, so I haven't really started the full prose review. However, I have taken a slightly closer look at it, and continue to find more and more aspects of non-encyclopedic writing. For example, take the first paragraph of the Technology section (my comments interspersed in red):

Beginning in the early 1800s, economic prosperity skyrocketed (Is skyrocketed in the source? If not, it is rather unencyclopedic, try "increased significantly" or something similiar.) due to improvements in technological efficiency. This communication (What communication? We were just alking about technological efficiency.) was facilitated largely by the advent of new technologies including the railroad, steamboat/steam engine, and coal as a fuel source. These innovations accelerated the Great Divergence, elevating Europe and the United States to high economic standing relative to the other world regions. (All other world regions? Or just the East (I'm assuming meaning Asia?) as discussed in the rest of the paragraph?) Though these inventions were founded in the West, the Eastern countries still employed their uses in trade and transportation. So, a disparity arises. (This switches to the present tense, when everything else is in past tense.) Both the Western and Eastern countries had access to the same technology, yet the West benefited more from its presence. In other words, technology was readily available to all countries,(The beginning of this sentence doesn't need to be here. Try just "...benefited more from its presence due to a difference in use between the two areas.") but its use differed between the East and the West. The concept of comparative use-efficiency levels can be used to help corroborate the West's progression ahead of the East. (Don't say what can be used, just say it is used.)

I know that each editor to the article is responsible for a section, and so it may look like I'm "picking on" one particular editor. I'm really not trying to do that, as this form is something that continues through most of the article. Overall there is a need for more specificity, proper tenses and less essay-ish writing. I also know that this sounds a bit harsh and down-putting, but I promise that it's not! I think this article has great potential, and should be able to make GA status with just a bit more polishing. Also, I have done a bit of formatting on your comments above to make them easier to read - I hope this is OK with everyone. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the technology section and I just went in and made the changes you suggested and a few more elsewhere where the language was not quite encyclopedic. For instance, I had said "tons of farmers" but now I realize that's not professional so I changed it to "a high number of." I think the section is now cleaned up quite well and is solid content-wise. Thanks for the input. RomanHarlovic (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Learning how to write in a more professional manner is a useful skill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in charge of politics and leadership and I elaborated on the section overview. I looked online and have had no luck on finding the person who coined the term the Great Divergence. Did anyone else have any luck? Kro14 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Frank's review, the term was coined by Samuel P. Huntington. Kanguole 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This source here also says it was Huntington, just read the first few sentences, http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/pomeranz.html So at this point I think my section is complete. We're nearing the deadline, does everything look to be in order with all of our sections? I'd hate to get feedback just before the deadline. 130.49.11.198 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to discuss that in the article. I will also be leaving some copyediting tags in the article if necessary later today. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Piotrus, I'm afraid I must disagree with some of your tags. It was my understanding that in many places one reference at the end of a paragraph covered the entire paragraph. In some of these places, you have asked for separate references in two or three different places in a paragraph, which, if my understanding about the current referencing situation is correct, would result in the same reference being repeated even more times than it already is, which is unnecessary. Also, just because a paragraph is unreferenced doesn't mean it needs a reference - material that is not likely to be challenged does not need a reference, and IMO all obviously uncited material in the article (barring the newly added intros, which I haven't reviewed yet) meet this standard. If you are challenging the material, it is of course a different story, but just because it's there doesn't mean it needs to be referenced. Also, as a note to the students, the lead of the article still needs to be expanded, and this is a problem that has lingered from the start of this review. Please rectify this soon! Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove some of those tags, you of course can; I will however make a case for why they should stay. It is our assumption that those references "at the end of a paragraph" are for the entire paragraph. But is it really true? And what of the readers who don't know how this article was created? Can they be sure, without looking at its history, that a controversial/interesting fact in the middle of a paragraph, before the referenced sentence, is from the same ref and not from a different one? If a sentence is referenced, it can be safely assumed it is from the end-of-the-sentence ref. If only a paragraph is referenced, it is much more difficult to be sure that all other sentences in it are, in fact, referenced. I, personally, never assume that an unreferenced sentence is referenced by the ref that comes later - and hence I am a strong support of "ref every sentence unless it contains uncontroversial common knowledge claims" interpretation of WP:V and WP:CITE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Further review

It looks like this is getting closer. However, a few more comments have come up as I have continued to read further into the article:

• Piotrus is correct that the lead is now too many paragraphs. Shorten it to just two or three paragraphs, or condense the shorter paragraphs until there are only two or three. Also, paragraph four is a direct copy of the intro to the section on politics and leadership. The paragraph in the lead should be a summary of the whole section, while the intro to the section should show how all of these countries were tied together and why these particular countries mattered enough to be separated out.
• There really needs to be some sort of an "etymology" section or similar. It should discuss what is now being talked about in the merge discussion on the talk page - who the term was created by and when, what other terms are used for the same phenomenon, the book by the same name, etc. Who made the term popular, how often/widely is it used, is it still in style now or did it get left behind with the 20th century, etc. The rest of the article is a good history lesson, but there needs to be a section that ties it all together.
• Here are some possible images to include:

• 
  A good overall map showing where geographically this article is discussing
• Maybe use this to illustrate the industrial revolution?
  Maybe use this to illustrate the industrial revolution?
• 
  Possibly use to illustrate the France subsection?
• 
  An 1800s example of nationalistic art, maybe use to illustrate the ideologies section?

• As you can see, you don't have to have images that are directly connected to the Great Divergence, as long as they are connected to other ideas that you are describing. Use these if you wish, or take them as examples and find even better ones!

• I've begun to go through the article and copyedit. Please take a look at the edits I have made so far and see what you can do to the rest of the article. Each student should look at the article as a whole, rather than just their section, and see what they can do to improve the flow and coherance. I shall be back tomorrow to complete more work. I apologize for the slow pace on this review in recent days - real life has become rather busy and so I'm squeezing this in when I can :) Dana boomer (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Nice map, but must also include North Africa - Moors, Berbers, Aegyptians - the whole Mediterranean soup. Perhaps the African side of Red Sea too. East of Borschov (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• the article is seeing good progress, but it is nowhere near stability. We are just beginning to address questions of title and scope overlaps, and if I know anything about the nature of article development, the distribution of material will keep shifting around significantly over the next months. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are great! Condensing the beginning paragraphs to only 2 or 3 is proving difficult for me. I condensed it to 4 and that flows very well. When I linked it to 3 the paragraph seemed to run on inexorably and it looked clunky and gross on the screen. If anybody has a better way of linking them, go for it, though you may need to trim down on the content so the intro doesn't run on. I feel that it flows with 4 paragraphs, though. Let me know if this absolutely has to change. Also, where should we place the etymology section? At the very end to tie it together? It also seems to be a hard topic to tackle with all the debate around appropriate terms to use. Maybe just by outlining that debate the section will serve its purpose. It's kind of late to be starting a whole new section (the class ended this past Wednesday). Piotr, is it ok that this is going on for extended time like this? RomanHarlovic (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can delay the final grade till tomorrow. Keep up the good job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Piotr and Dana and Group, OK, I just added an etymology section to the end of the article outlining the terms used and the debate over them and the time period. I did not cite it, the citations however should be the same as those used in the first sentences (I'm more comfortable letting whoever cited those sentences in the first place, I think it was Kayla, cite the etymology section). I'm starting a new set of courses today, so I will not really be able to continue editing heavily. RomanHarlovic (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Everytime I go to do a final prose review on this article, more issues seem to pop up. The latest is the ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding coverage and naming. Dbachmann (dab) has done the research that I should have done at the beginning and cogently explained the feeling that I have been having - that this article focuses too much on the general history surrounding the divergence and too little on the term itself. This article is about the term, not the history of the world during the approximate period of the industrial revolution, and the term (as well as the term "European miracle"), as well as the myths and misconceptions surrounding it, appear to have been widely discussed in sources that were never even brought up here. Dbachmann puts it well when he says the current article feels like "a random brainstorming on loosely related factors" rather than a systematic discussion of the academic literature on this topic. While GAs of course do not need to meet the "comprehensive" criteria of featured articles, they do need to be "broad", and at this point I don't think this article meets this criteria. There is also the fact that the article still doesn't feel coherant - it feels more like what it is: an article that was put together in chunks by students who only focused on their own section and who do not appear to be working together to tie it into a continuing narrative. While the students have definitely improved the coverage of this topic on Wikipedia, I still don't feel comfortable moving this article to GA status. I realize that the grading period is coming up soon, and students are moving on to other coursework, and so this will affect the amount of work done on the article. If any or all of the students still wish to continue working on the article, I am more than willing to keep the review open. However, I think it might take a concerted effort to bring this article back onto the topic of the term, rather than the surrounding history and politics, and I want to know that there is someone willing to make this effort before I continue to put effort into reviewing the article. I don't mean to sound rude or pushy by saying this - instead I'm trying to simply give my feelings on the current state of the article. Now, before I move too far into the realm of TLDR, comments from anyone else? Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think this was a more difficult subject then those that my previous / other student groups have usually worked on; in fact I think this subject would be more suited to be developed by a grad rather than an undergrad course. As I'll be grading the student's work tomorrow, I don't expect this article will be GA by then (as I agree with Dana's points); on the other hand I think the students did a good job expanding the article within the limited scope of the summer course (so for my students reading this: I do think you did a good job, and the grade will reflect this - but any final efforts you can put into the article tomorrow wouldn't go amiss! Also, if any of you do in fact plan on working on this project after the course ends, please let Dana know). PS. Dana - do you think this article is closer to a C or B class now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably closer to B-class. It is relatively well developed and sourced, it just doesn't really have GA quality quite yet. I'm headed off to bed now, so will see and respond to further comments in the morning. Dana boomer (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) As there is still quite a bit of work that needed, I am going to close the review now as not promoted. I want to emphasize that the students who worked on this did a wonderful job of improving Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, and I hope they return to edit this or another article some day! Please let me know if any of you have further questions, Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)