Talk:Proto-globalization/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will start reviewing this one tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
This is certainy a very "professional looking" article and it has the appearances of being a Good Article in respect of a comprehensive scope, lots of references and a good number of illustrations. I will now start a more detailed review, section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last. I will also ✅ off actions when I am satisfied that they have been completed.

At this point I will make several comments:
 * For an article of this length, the WP:Lead appears to be too short. Its probably OK as an introduction to the subject but it is also intended to povide a summary of the main points in the article, and this one does not.
 * There is a little too much wikilinking. For instance in Thirty Years' War every occurence of Thirty Years War is linked as is every occurence of English Civil War in English Civil War'. These only need to be linked once.
 * Some of the book references do not quote page numbers, and so are non-compliant with WP:Verify.

Pyrotec (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Before Proto-Globalization -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - There is a single reference for this section - it is a book and no page number, or page numbers are cited.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - This section makes a number of sweeping statements "Proto-Globalization started in 1600",  "This period is known as archaic globalization" without explanation. Clicking on the archaic globalization link provides some information that this was proposed by the historian A.G. Hopkins; and A.G. Hopkins and Christopher Bayly are also mentioned in the WP:lead. I suggest that this section is modified to state that these are definitions of Hopkins and/or Bayly; and that you clarify who was responsible for what.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - It's not clear what the "(240-21)" is doing in ref 4, i.e. (240-241) Dillon, Matthew, and Lynda Garland. 2005. Ancient Rome: From the Early Republic to the Assassination of Julius Caesar. NYC, NY: Routeledge. PP 235.
 * fixed all these 71.61.59.16 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)<--that was me too Toasterlyreasons (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Roman Empire - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with what is written in this subsection. However, the Roman Empire broke into East and West (see Decline of the Roman Empire) and this section is only written from the perspective of the Roman, i.e. The Western Roman Empire; there is no mention of the Eastern Empire, i.e. the Byzantine Empire, which outlasted the Western one.


 * I thought about that when I wrote it...I was using the Early Roman Empire as background for Western Europe's emerging as a hegemonic power before, during, and after proto-globalization (since it would not have been prudent to talk about every section of the world's background I focused on the two that were most influential to the proto-globalization period, Western Europe and China)...but maybe a brief mention of the Byzantine Empire, two or three sentences? 71.61.59.16 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC) ( <this was me Toasterlyreasons (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Two or three sentences would be great. PS: You should be using your usename if you are doing the educational assignment, so that you get the "credit". Pyrotec (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(thanks! I keep forgetting to sign in) Toasterlyreasons (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Scope of Before Proto-Globalization - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having thought further about my comments above in the Roman Empire subsection, many of the Muslem nations were more advanced than the West in the Middle Ages and they over ran parts of Spain and Constantinople. Venice appears the major maritime nation at that time. Also, Banking and the ability to make international transfers of money need to be in place before Globalisation. None of these appear in this article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Description -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - I'm not sure if "The proto-globalization period was a time of "improved efficiency in the transactions sector" with the generation of goods such as sugar, tobacco, tea, coffee, and opium unlike anything the archaic globalization had (Hopkins 7)." is intended as a reference. If it is it needs to be put into the correct format. Possibly it is intended to be the same as the current Ref 31?


 * Changes in Trade Systems and Commodities - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 is a book and no page number, or page numbers are cited.
 * What is meant by "pre-modern"?
 * The statement "such as drugs and certain foods" seems to be unnecessarily vague. The unasked question "what" does not appear to have been answered.
 * I don't understand the meaning of the sentence "On the opposition, it was more common during ...."
 * Ref 31 (Bayly, C.A. 2004) is a book and no page number, or page numbers are cited.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Atlantic Slave Trade -
 * You provide a referenced statement that 10.2 million slaves survived the Altantic crossing, but the obvious question is, out of how many (or how many did not)?
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Ref 40 (Solow, Barbara (ed.)) is a book and no page number, or page numbers are cited.
 * ❌ Pyrotec (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Ref 45, (Daudin 2004), I assume is a book, if so a page number, or page numbers need to be cited. However, Daudin 2004 is not listed in References.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Plantation Economy - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like the sentence "Consequently, the rise of slave workers was due to the rise ....". The obvious question is consequently to what?
 * Ref 46 needs to be properly cited, preferably using undefined, the current ref needs, at least, a "publisher".
 * The final sentence needs a citation.


 * Tobacco - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 47 "tobbaco website" - what is it?
 * This first paragraph is in almost random date sequence: it starts off in 17th century, then it goes back to mid 16th century: I suggest that it is put into date sequence.
 * The first part of this sentence "The European lack of interest in tobacco was reasoned from the controlled of tobacco by the Amerindians; as long as they controlled the supply there was no need for the incorporation in European commercial capitalism.[4]" does not make sense to me; and "they" after the semicolon needs to be clarified, my assumption is that they = Europeans, but it could be Amerindians.


 * Hostilities, War, and Imperialism -
 * There are far, far, too many wikilinks in this section: ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In Thirty Years' War, every occurence of Thirty Years' War is linked, as is every occurrence of Germany.
 * In English Civil War every occurence of English Civil War is linked, as is every occurrence of England.
 * etc, etc.


 * Thirty Years' War appears to be almost a straight copy and paste from . It looks like a copyright violation - WP:COPYVIO/ WP:PLAGIARISM.


 * This subsection needs to be rewritten, soon, otherwise it is likely to be deleated and a COPYVIO notice put in its place. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave Hostilities, War, and Imperialism and come back to it later, I suspect copyright violation WP:COPYVIO/ WP:PLAGIARISM and this is going to take some time to sort out. Pyrotec (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Treaties and Agreements - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This sentence does not quite make sense, "The East India Company was any number of commercial enterprises formed in western Europe the 17th and 18th centuries to further trade in the East Indies. The company held a monopoly from India to Asia", it needs a slight edit.
 * References 84 to 100 are "raw" web references. They should be converted to formated references (preferably) using the cite web template, template:cite web. Some of these web references have a personal author, most in not all have a publisher and some have a publication date. There should also be an accession date, you could put "November 2009", but a date needs to be there.


 * Transition from Proto-globalization into Modern Globalization -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a good section. Pyrotec (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * References -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - To aid the reader, these should be listed alphabetically by author's surname (last name).

Hi, thanks so much for the time you are putting in to review this article. I had a question about the references though. I put the author names in alphabetical order, then the website w/o authors in alphabetical order based on title. Is this right or should i incorporate them into the authors? (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Hi Bbsaa. Some of your references, such as these "Klein 1999, pp.9", "Klein 1999, pp.20" and "Thomas 1997, pp.170" are Havard references. For this reason, the references should be listed in alphabetical order of surname. I'm happy with waht has been done. Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hostilities, War, and Imperialism -
 * Many, if not all, of the web citations in this section are raw web links. They should be properly cited. Use the {cite web} template, if necessary.


 * Introduction -
 * This subsection reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia. It needs a bit more work.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * '''WP:Lead -
 * For an article of this length, the WP:Lead appears to be too short. Its probably OK as an introduction to the subject but it is also intended to povide a summary of the main points in the article, and this one does not.

Overall sumary
This article is very close to being a GA, but there are uncompleted actions above that need addressing first. I've already changed the status of this review to "On Hold". Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a good article and it is effectively quite a resonably Good Article. The WP:Lead needs a tiny bit more work done on it, so do some of the web-based citations; however, overall the article is compliant with WP:WIAGA. I'm therefore awarding GA-status. Congratulations on your team efforts. Pyrotec (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: