Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dutch Empire/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

Dutch Empire

edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is finished, and it is good enough to become a featured atricle. Red4tribe (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no requirement in any guideline that I'm aware of for a space between the page and number; many editors (depends on the country, I suspect?) do not use a space. WP:WIAFA calls for consistently formatted citations; as long as the space or lack of space are consistent, that's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Nearly all your non-print references are unformatted. Ref #45 looks odd.
  • Section headers shouldn't start with articles and shouldn't repeat the title of the article unless absolutely necessary.
  • Uncited weasel word - "arguably" - in "Dutch language" section"
  • Both American and British spelling are present in the article: i.e. recognise, defence, neighbor, colonise.
  • Plenty of redundancy:
    • "There are still some archaeological remains of Fort Goede Hoop (modern Hartford, Connecticut) and Fort Orange (modern Albany, New York)"
  • "The success of these voyages led to the founding of a number of companies competing for the trade."
  • "During the Franco-Dutch War, which saw the Republic be invaded by France, the Dutch seized a number of French possessions in the Caribbean and South America, including Tobago and French Guiana"
  • Per User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Misplaced_formality, "in order to" should probably be replaced with just plain "to".
  • Not all footnotes are placed directly after punctuation.
  • Centuries should probably be linked in the lead - they give context.
  • "Dutch merchants and sailors also participated in the surge of exploration that unfolded in the 16th and 17th centuries, though the vast new territories revealed by Willem Barents, Henry Hudson, Willem Janszoon and Abel Tasman in the Arctic and in Australasia/Oceania did not generally become permanent Dutch colonies."
  • "With Dutch naval power rising rapidly as a major force from the late 16th century," - awkward phrasing, recommend replacing the word "from" in particular.
  • "reigned supreme at sea"? You don't need to source the lead, but I'd like to see a reference (provided here) for such an extravagant claim.
  • "The restored portions of the Dutch empire, notably the Dutch East Indies and Suriname remained under the Netherlands' control until the decline of traditional imperialism following World War II." - you're missing a comma
  • Many short paragraphs that need to be merged

I probably barely scratched the surface here - you're going to need a full copyedit, preferably more than one, before this article is up to par. Recommend withdrawal. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments your website references are lacking all bibliographical information. At the very least you need publisher, title and last access date. Author and other information are good to have if known. Some of the website sources are just plain urls, they need titles as well as all the other information. The link checker tool is showing a dead link. When the references are formatted consistently, I'll try to recheck for reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now:

  • The prose problems are mentioned by others. Needs a good copy-edit.
  • Pictures - the maps are good, but the only image with people is a poor photo of the declaration of Indonesian independence. Not a single ship, of all the Dutch ship paintings! Nothing by Frans Post, the earliest significant painter to paint scenes in the colonies of any European country. The page of illegible writing that is the "formal declaration of independence of the Dutch provinces from the Spanish king, Philip II." adds little here, and the stumpy monument is not much better. There is plenty of room for better images.
  • The more colonial nature of the Cape colony should be mentioned earlier - it only appears in "Legacy". Did the North American colonies also involve a population settling; one would guess so from the numbers staying behind after the English takeover?
  • There is no real explanation of the process by which small forts and "factories" are turned into significant territories. Wars with other European powers are covered, but were there none with indigenous rulers or peoples? Did the VOC have an army, like the East India Company? No mention of the role of planters, or how that system worked, or even the crops grown. Who owned plantations in the East Indies?
  • The legacy section has no mention of post-colonial immigration into the Netherlands, and the issues, including terrorism, that has produced.

Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Problems with 1b (comprehensiveness). There is very little information on the impact of the colonial power on aboriginal peoples. With the exception of Peter Stuyvesant, there is no mention of other governors. Were they all non-notable? How did the Dutch carry out their rule? What about the movement of peoples (Dutch immigration to the colonies, aboriginal people to the Netherlands)? There are some section organisation problems. The fifty years of Dutch hegemony section appears to cover more than that period, making the two sections afterwards covering the 150 years up to the Napoleonic period look small. Cape Town is under the "Asia" subsection! The Cape Colony information should be expanded. It might also be a good idea to look for more relevant sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl-I'd like to withdraw this from the FAC. Red4tribe (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dutch_Empire/archive1&oldid=1084314565"