Talk:Meermin/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mutiny
- I think there's probably too much detail on the mutiny, repeating what's said in the mutiny article. In this article about the ship, I think it needs to concentrate more on the ship itself, not the mutiny.
- Destruction and salvage
- I'd be inclined to merge the first part of this with a shortened Mutiny section, renamed Destruction perhaps. The salvage part I'd be inclined to merge with the Archaeology section.
- I've just saved a preliminary edit with both the above points in mind, any good? Nortonius (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's moving in the right direction, but still about half the article is about the mutiny. Does Pesky have an opinion on this? Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great, thanks – an opinion from Pesky apart from the fruity one, you mean? I haven't asked as I thought Senra would be on board with me, but he doesn't seem to be around – I'll ask her now; though, I may be to bed soon-ish. Further sources for the ship are out there, and I've been trying to round them up. Some success but slow progress, e.g. nothing yet about what the ship did 'twixt maiden voyage and collecting these poor folks on Madagascar. I also emailed the archaeologist Jaco Boshoff some time ago (weeks) but no reply, and had an almost fruitless but helpful little to-and-fro emailing the Scheepvaart Museum in Hamsterjam; I wanted the ship's plans which are there, but only managed to confirm I'd got the ship's type & settle on images. Apart from the plans, there's only one source I know of that I still want to see, which could help a little with what the Meermin was up to 1761–1766, it may appear but it could be weeks. Short of that, I'm not sure there's much more that I can say about the ship. Sorry if that's a bit crap…? Maybe say still less about the mutiny? Nortonius (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's no great rush, as I'm certainly not going to quick fail it. I just want to see it focused more on the ship than the mutiny. And conversely, now this article exists, how much of ship's details need to be in the mutiny article? I really think you need to work these articles as a pair. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for that. Yes, the article has to focus on the ship; I dragged and tweaked quite a bit across from the mutiny article, e.g. the infobox, and I'm not sure there's anything left there that isn't here. Though, now you mention it, does the mutiny article need as much as it has on the archaeology? That might tip the scales better between the two articles; but it wouldn't help with this one, as it's already here. And, I think ship info remaining in the mutiny article is needed for context…? I have asked Pesky, btw, she might well have something to say about it all. I really am off to bed now though; thanks Malleus, I'll be back on in the morning. Cheers. :o) Nortonius (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think if we (which probably means Nortonius!) can get hold of that other information, that will be all to the good. At the moment, any information we can interpret from the plans would (I think?) fall into the category of OR, though I'm really not sure on that one, at all. I need more expert help on deciding what would be OR (things like measurements etc. which may not be specified in actual words elsewhere). I, too, tried to find out more about any other of her voyages, but the VOCsite has next to nothing about what she did. VOC's own archives may have more about her, though I would have thought, if they did, that the VOCsite would have included it in her details.
Re: archaeology; I'd be happy for it to be thinned down a little in the mutiny article, and beefed up in the ship article. I have a Google alert for any mention of her, so as and when more information on the archaeology turns up, I will get an instant notification about it. I'm surprised that there hasn't been any more recent news on this. Maybe we could "poke" the Iziko museums to publish an update on their site, if there is one? Just a thought. I do think we need a reasonable amount of info on the ship herself in the mutiny article, as Nortonius says, for context etc., and I think it's probably fair to include a reasonable amount on the mutiny in the ship article, as that's what Meermin is primarily known for. Without the mutiny, we'd know next to nothing about her; it was that which has provided the amount of coverage we have on her, herself. So, I'm in (at the very least) two minds about what to do, where! Pesky (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Pesky, that all sounds right to me – the only question that leaves me with is, do you think I should email Iziko Museums directly, then, since Mr Boshoff seems not to be answering his emails? Or, not mine, anyway. I'm as surprised as you are that this hasn't been updated more fully, even if they have nothing to report apart from what they've been doing. The roving exhibition last year shows they're still interested, but there's been sod-all new information about the ship since, erm, 2007, when Andrew Alexander was killed in a car crash. I find that very sad. Anyway, I'll see if I can find a suitable target for another email. And I'll take another look at archaeology info in the mutiny article if you like? :o) Nortonius (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. About OR – I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw measurements from the ship's plans, since these are technical drawings and include a scale, e.g. no-one ever queries uncited mention of distance from A to B (unless it's wrong, obv) cos it's on a map; but we only know about e.g. the Constapelskamer from explicit mention in RS. Any help…?
- I've sent Mr Boshoff a little reminder, mentioning the slave article's appearance on the Main Page and the creation of this article; and I've added some stuff about the ship's type here. A bit better, maybe…? Nortonius (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I broadly agree with Pesky; it's really a matter of getting the balance right between the mutiny and the ship articles, so one doesn't read like a duplicate of the other. But can you clear up an issue of chronology for me? The ship was laid down in 1759 and commissioned in 1761, but the lead gives the strong impression that it was laid down as a cargo ship and then converted to a slave ship in 1761. Is that what happened, or was it always intended to be a slave ship? I agree with you about the plans BTW; they're just as much a published source as a map or a book. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that'd be my lack of clarity, then (though there's a lack of precision in the sources: they're mostly interested in the mutiny). I'll try to sort that out. Bottom line as I understand it is that the ship was built in response to an internal VOC order for ?four ships specifically for "the company's African trade which included moving slaves around". So, it would naturally have become a slave transport, and its outfitting in 1761 is merely another handy detail. Sorry I made it a confusing one! Nortonius (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. …although, looking again at this, it would have us believe that the Meermin did start life as a regular trading vessel, and then became a slaver in 1761. I still think this depends on what one reads, though: from what I've read, the question "was the ship a slaver or not?" is a whole issue in itself, since the same ship could be different things at different times, making e.g. the archaeology of slave ships very complex. I'll think further.
Hang on a mo – the answer's clear as day… The ship was fitted out to carry slaves in 1761, and her maiden voyage started on 27 January 1761 (click on "Beschrijving"). So, she was a slaver from the start; but slave ships didn't fly about empty between slaving trips. I'll have to clear that up, in a minor way though probably, given the existence of Slave ship. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that'd be my lack of clarity, then (though there's a lack of precision in the sources: they're mostly interested in the mutiny). I'll try to sort that out. Bottom line as I understand it is that the ship was built in response to an internal VOC order for ?four ships specifically for "the company's African trade which included moving slaves around". So, it would naturally have become a slave transport, and its outfitting in 1761 is merely another handy detail. Sorry I made it a confusing one! Nortonius (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. …although, looking again at this, it would have us believe that the Meermin did start life as a regular trading vessel, and then became a slaver in 1761. I still think this depends on what one reads, though: from what I've read, the question "was the ship a slaver or not?" is a whole issue in itself, since the same ship could be different things at different times, making e.g. the archaeology of slave ships very complex. I'll think further.
- I broadly agree with Pesky; it's really a matter of getting the balance right between the mutiny and the ship articles, so one doesn't read like a duplicate of the other. But can you clear up an issue of chronology for me? The ship was laid down in 1759 and commissioned in 1761, but the lead gives the strong impression that it was laid down as a cargo ship and then converted to a slave ship in 1761. Is that what happened, or was it always intended to be a slave ship? I agree with you about the plans BTW; they're just as much a published source as a map or a book. Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Construction and use
- "We're told twice that the Meermin was made from oak, once is enough.
- "They came to be used more widely in trade with the Dutch East Indies via the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, as their rounded sterns proved to be resistant to warping and springing, which could cause 'catastrophic leaking when exposed to strong sun.'" I've read and re-read that several times trying to get clear in my mind what's wrong with it, and it's this; it isn't "the warping and springing" that's exposed to strong sun.
- How about this? 1st oak's gone, and "their rounded sterns proved to be more resistant to warping and springing than square sterns,[14] which were prone to "catastrophic leaking when exposed to strong sun." Any good? Square sterns are described in the source as less than ideal compared to the rounded ones. (makes me think of the Cutty Sark and the China tea trade) Leaving only the 2nd oak feels a bit like springing a surprise though...? Maybe the 1st should stay and the 2nd go. Ok if not. Nortonius (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good, thanks – think I'll leave it for now in that case, though maybe a better way of putting it will occur to me. Nortonius (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty happy with this now, and I'm going it list it as a GA. One thing I did notice though is that the lead says that half of the ship's crew was killed as a result of the mutiny, but I don't see anywhere how many crew members there were? I may just have missed it, but I don't want to keep chipping away at things I'm sure you'll fix anyway, so congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good, thanks – think I'll leave it for now in that case, though maybe a better way of putting it will occur to me. Nortonius (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)