Wikipedia:Peer review/Commercial Revolution/archive1

Commercial Revolution
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this page off and on for a year or more, and would like some input from other editors on ways to improve, either in content or resources. Also would like some other contributions from people besides myself.

Thanks, Hires an editor (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Review (Mcorazao)
Interesting article with some good content. Some specific feedback:

Things I'd recommend changing
 * General
 * Scoping - The term "commercial revolution" is used in different ways by different sources. For example, some other period definitions:
 * The commercial revolution of the Middle Ages, 950-1350, by Robert Sabatino Lopez
 * The new Cambridge medieval history, Volume 4, by the University of Cambridge (pg. 115-116, discusses the revolution from the 11th to the 14th century)
 * This article either needs to cover all of these periods or else needs to be more clear about how it is using the term in contrast to these other uses (and in some fashion justify why it is appropriate to limit the article's coverage in this way).
 * Mistakes on the references:
 * One inline citation mentions author "Fisk" but there is no Fisk in the references.
 * Some of the citations don't use the "cite" templates (e.g. The Columbia Encyclopedia reference). It is preferable to always use these for consistency.
 * Some self-published sites and lower-quality references used:
 * Sue Pojer, apparently a high school teacher, and her self-published works are cited as primary references. This is inappropriate.
 * http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH7.html - This is just part of a series of essays that a faculty member put on his personal page of the University web site.
 * http://www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdf_his102/mercantilism.pdf - Link is broken but it may still be a good source otherwise
 * http://www.powellcenter.org/uploads/MoneyManageAll.pdf - OK reference but kind of flimsy.
 * The organization and flow is a little unclear. The article suddenly starts talking about what motivated the voyages of discovery without giving an idea of how the voyages relate to the topic (i.e. what does that specifically have to do with causing or being part of the Revolution?). Similarly the "Rise of the Money Economy" and other sections just launch into their discussions without any up front clarification of what this has to do with the topic. Granted if you are well versed in the topic it might be obvious how these tie in to the overall topic but you should assume the reader is pretty clueless and make sure as you start discussion of each facet it is clear what that has to do with the overall topic.
 * In general the major sections feel a little like independent articles. Mind you, making each section stand somewhat on its own is good. But, for example, having a sub-section of "Important people" in "Voyages of Discovery" seems a tad odd (as opposed to having an "Important people" section for the whole article at the end).
 * Some inline citations are fairly inspecific (e.g. the citation on the Turks cutting off overland routes to the East specifies Chapter 1 of "New York: the World's Capital City, Its Development and Contributions to Progress" rather than a page range). In general you want to zero editors in on specific text you are citing (sometimes it is even worth adding a quote in the reference so the editors).
 * Some of the references are incomplete as far as GA/FA criteria. Things like city of publication (the location field) and ISBN should be there for books. Even for web citations, the author, publisher, and date of publication should be specified if the info is available.
 * Some of the references are incomplete as far as GA/FA criteria. Things like city of publication (the location field) and ISBN should be there for books. Even for web citations, the author, publisher, and date of publication should be specified if the info is available.


 * Intro
 * The intro could do with a bit of rework to explain in some fashion how the commercial revolution represented a change from the past. In other words, it is unclear what the revolution was. The intro simply talks about some general trends without really clarifying the fundamental breakthrough that caused historians to label it a revolution.


 * Origins of the term & Timeframe
 * These sections are really short. I would either add more to them or try to combine them in some fashion (or merge them into other sections.
 * "... with one source saying the beginning ..." - Rather an odd statement. If you are going to mention a particular source you should mention who that is. And you should only mention that one source if they could be considered notable for whatever reason. In this context that qualification seems to me unnecessary.


 * Rise of the Money Economy
 * "In the middle of the 13th century Venetian bankers began ..." - These two sentences are a direct quote from the source. Though they are in quotation marks the source is not mentioned (the ref citation is not enough). The source needs to be explicitly specified and the quote needs to be explicitly described as a quote.


 * Law
 * This section is very sparse and includes only some very specific facts. Either this should be expanded to be more complete or it should be removed (I think the former is the right thing).


 * Effects
 * This section focuses a lot on the indirect and incidental effects of the revolution (e.g. I don't think anyone would argue that a change to a commercial economy is an inherent cause of continental depopulation). I would say that the section should focus up front on the direct effects and de-emphasize the indirect effects.

Things to think about (other editors may disagree)
 * NPOV concern: This article is really talking about the Western European commercial revolution. Most of these basic concepts that launched in Europe during the Renaissance were not new and in fact had been explored by the Romans, the "Byzantines", the Muslim Caliphates, and others. In some sense the West was catching up after the Dark Ages. It is true that as the revolution developed in Europe they extended a lot of concepts beyond what had existed in other places. But still the fact that Europe did not invent the concepts should be in some fashion explained and, if the article is going to limit itself to the West, that should be stated up front.
 * In reading the article one thing that strikes me is that I feel a little confused as to whether I am reading a history of events or a discussion of economic theories and trends. I wonder if there would be merit in separating out the history of events that took place from the more general discussions about what was signficant about the era, the economic theories that emerged, etc. (i.e. a major section for the history and completely independent sections discussing economy theories, legal development, etc.). I'm not sure honestly. Just a thought.
 * The "Rise of the Money Economy" section is 4 levels deep. This makes it hard to follow. As a general rule I think if you are creating more than 3 levels it means the article needs to be reorganized.

Hope this helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Automated review
I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)