Wikipedia:Peer review/Treaty of Butre (1656)/archive1

Treaty of Butre (1656)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because this article deals with a rare and special treaty between the African state of Ahanta and the Netherlands, dating from 1656. In it a form of protection is established which would last for almost 213 years.

The article is brief but succinct, with all the necessary information and a link to the full text of the treaty on Wikisource. It is my belief that the article is already at GA-level, or very close to it, and deserves a serious assessment and commentary eventually leading it towards that status. Also, the layout of the article could well serve as a model for other short bilateral treaties in Wikipedia, so also look at it with that in mind.

Thanks, Michel Doortmont (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would suggest altering the structure of the content. It would read most clearly and comprehensively, at least in my eyes, if the content were broken into three sections: (1) Events leading to treaty, (2) description of treaty, (3) subsequent developments, in that order. Also, article would benefit by a more thorough linking to other content, either extant or otherwise. Kings are almost inherently notable, so even red links for the names of kings would make sense. Also, the lead should be expanded to include more information. If the article is going to present content regarding events leading to and arising from the treaty, then the lead should include some of that information as well. John Carter (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in part here. Linking is indeed necessary, but suffers a little bit from a current lack of African history detail in the Wikipedia content. Linking extensively to Dutch history might cause bias and Eurocentrism. I will think about how to do this. With regard to the proposed three-section-approach I am hesitant to sandwich the treaty in between to historical sections. That is also the reason for my two-section-approach in the current text. To my mind in this way the treaty - core element of the article - might easily be swamped by historical information that belongs elsewhere. Will experiment with this a bit in the sandbox. And would like some more comments on the matter. Agree on lead-info.

As a postscript: this exercise is also a response to the numerous horrendous articles on treaties floating around Wikipedia at the moment. Michel Doortmont (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)