Talk:Trade route/Archives/2013

Failed "good article" nomination
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 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:

I failed this article (in terms of its coverage and NPOV) because it either fails to adequately define itself or is severely lacking major aspects of trade routes. Is it limited to overland trade? The article doesn't make this clear. There are obviously maritime routes of trade as well that are very important. But even if the article gives a clearer scope, it consists solely of historical information on a few major routes. Where is any information on how trade routes operate? What was the first recorded trade route (perhaps I missed this)? Why did trade routes come about? Also, I feel as if the article leans far to heavily to the classical Asian and European routes such as the Silk road, including it and others to the detriment of coverage of the Americas and Africa. This is an unacceptable undue weight on one significant point of view on the topic, thus (probably accidentally) violating NPOV. While the writing and the referencing of what is here now is great, the article either needs to be significantly expanded or to narrow its scope. Van Tucky  Talk 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that the article failed the review due to the following points:


 * 1. Lack of coverage of maritime trade routes, which gives the false impression that overland trade was the be-all-end-all of trade until the advent of the modern times.


 * 2. Lack of coverage of early trade routes and role of governments (or powers) of the day.


 * 3. Operation of trade routes: taxes, stoppages, arrangements of security, currencies, barter etc.


 * 4. Heavy dependence on European and Asian routes while neglecting American and African routes.


 * I'll try to address all of the above mentioned concerns as soon as possible. Kindly add any additional concerns if I missed them.


 * Regards, Havelock the Dane Talk 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those would all be great improvements, and I think they'd make the article a lot more authorative & interesting. Also, the generalizations about trade routes in modern times seem a bit awkward and could benefit from either being removed (by a narrower focus) or expanded on.
 * However, I must say that this article already seems like a good piece of work, so another approach to getting the GA status might be resubmission until a more generous reviewer looks at the article. (For comparison, here's a page that reached GA status today: The Trouble with Trillions.)
 * --Wragge 16:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many ways to spend one's energy and use one's time at Wikipedia. Some of them are both more stimulating and more productive than struggling to achieve "good article" status. --Wetman 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would like to add that those points really do not amount to that much of work (I hope to have most of the work done in this sitting). The reason why I would like to see this article reach GA is because with a little effort, this article has the potential to become something that people from all cultures can be proud of, and a WP:GA tag can ensure that editors will guard the quality of the content from time to time. There are some things that connect cultures and for some reason they are neglected here on WP. I try to reserve my contribs to complete rewrites of a few articles that I find connect cultures in some way or the other (even if that means a British hunter starting a park later called Jim Corbett National Park after him). That way, I can be sure that WP readers have a few articles about things that cross borders in the oddest (and most pleasant) of ways. Havelok  ۞ 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Addressing concerns
In my latest round of edits I have tried to address the following issues: I know a thorough inspection for repeated wikilinks etc. and an image for the Trans Saharan trade section is due but before that could I get some more specifics on what more needs to done? Will a greater expansion of the "Background" section suffice since the governments and the political/military situations are covered in the sections themselves ?
 * Worked on the emergence of trade routes.
 * Created Trans Saharan trade section (I can't seem to find any American route of global note prior to the modern times).
 * Created Roman-India routes section, a section based on maritime trade.
 * Addressed the "hows and whens" to some extent in the "Background" section.

Regards, Havelok  ۞ 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have pre-Columbian America in the article now. Havelok  ۞ 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And the "Development of trade routes" section ought to cover most of the problems mentioned above. fuck

Will check for grammar etc. later. Havelok  ۞ 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and renominated. Looking forward to feedback and suggestions to further improve the article. Havelok  ۞ 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Article
I came to this article expecting to understand:

Why did trade routes exist, assuming people could buy/sell, barter wherever the heck the want. or if they couldn't, why wasn't that feasibile. Why would (entity) want to have/ how can (entity) have a monopoly over a place where people trade. Assuming trade is in everybody's interest. Why would countries go to war over a trade route (assuming countries can jointly ensure smooth trade assuming trade is in everyones interest. Why are they strategic and what game are we talking about here
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item

What I understand so far from myriad books, my deductions and suspicions:

The world has changed drastically and trade routes as written in the history books are a thing of the past so pipeline transport and cargo airlines have no place in the article.
 * Bulleted list item

Trade routes were always an instrument of empire building and as such are not discused in that light. The dubious word trade and free trade carry many connotations including (most prominently) imposing a producers will on a foreign economy. So the only people selling are (producers from) the stronger nation and the buyers are (the ignorant populace)of the weaker nation. Anyone doing trade out in the open is going to get the stick up so they needed protection. and countries who owned a trade route charged all participants a protection fee.
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item

The article reads like a detached, factual unedifying textbook, (routes for routes sake) with shallow explanations sprinkled here and there.

Please correct me If I am wrong I am only trying to have a deeper understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.234.226.68 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)