Wikipedia:Peer review/New Albion/archive1

New Albion

I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to improve a troubled article that has been the point of past problems. I know a bit of the topic and would like to see it become a featured article to which I've compared it according to FA criteria and other actual featured articles. What are immediate needs, large and small, experienced editors see? What are the next steps toward the FA designation?

Thanks, Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

• The sources could use some work:
  • source 3:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (2 with; 1 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
  • Source 28:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (2 with; 2 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
  • Source 29:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 2 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
  • Source 39:Missing ISBN
  • Source 45:Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
  • Source 4:Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
  • Source 48:Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
  • Source 53:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Source 57:Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Source 68:Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs {{orin-year}}
  • Source 69:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Source 79:Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs {{orin-year}}
  • Source 80:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (9 with; 7 without); Missing ISBN
  • Source 85:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Source 86: nconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 8 without); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN
  • Source 99:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 9 without); Missing ISBN
  • Source 104:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 10 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
  • Source 107:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 11 without); Missing ISBN
  • Source 110:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (10 with; 12 without)
  • Source 117:Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Source 123:Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC
  • Source 127:Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (12 with; 13 without); Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date
• As far as prose goes:
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, the citations in the lede are not required, and some will advocate removal of them in their entirety.
  • Should you hope to improve this article further, every statement must be sourced (so, at a minimum one source per paragraph).

Thanks@Eddie891I will see what I can do. And that was very special editing you did to the article. I had no idea about the spacing problem you fixed.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Eddie891-- finally messed around with the lead and background for reducing the citations. Will try to get around to fooling with the work on the sources.Pcvjamaica (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Prose Comments next. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I like your prose changes. After the criticism by Dudley Miles I read it with his thought in mind and see he is right. I've done a little about it.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• ", an act which would have significant long-term historical consequences" I'd remove this phrase, and instead say what the consequences were later in the lead.

Okay. That really does make sense.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• perhaps standardize double spaces after periods, or single. Its much easier to remove double spaces, which I can do for you if you so desire.

I learned keyboarding when double spaces were taught. It would be great if you could change it to whichever is easiest to do.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Linked to a nephew by the name of Francis Drake, not sure if its the right one.

I did not see it. I'll look at it though.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• "No Drake anchorage has endured so much scrutiny or seen the amount of field study and research as has this location" this sounds a bit odd. perhaps use a different word than anchorage, and end with " field study and research as new Albion."

I like the word anchorage a lot and I think it is the word that the author Michael Turner uses. Could be wrong on that though. Don't have that book with me at the moment. Ho about we keep it with this here: Anchorage (maritime)? And I'd like to keep the phrase "as has this location," because that is definitely what Turner is talking about. If you look at Fringe theories on the location of New Albion you can see there are a HUGE amount of New Albions--so that is why I like the phrase this site. I like that it is really specific. Besides, if you look at the history of the article, you can see a lot of arguing on the talk page and people have hacked it to promote a site that they believe in.

• "Many other correlative facts have been ... found true to the Drake's Cove site as part of the total body of evidence." Unless Oko himself italicized it, it needs to be unitalicized.

Yes. I have the article and I will look it up. I don't think I wrote that line and I totally agree with you. I should have seen that. Agghh, slap my head.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Some of the citations are not quite used right (i.e. "...green the entire year due to moisture provided by the persistent fog.[11]", "...first United States microbrewery of the modern era, 36")

I did not work on any of the citations in the localized legacy part. To me, the teeny tine citation detailed work is fatiguing. I didn't work on it thinking I might take out that citation. I did add the citation where you put citation needed. And its form is not quite right and it looks weird in the references. I'll slog through that later.

• I think localized legacy is fine.

Here is my thinking on this. I really want this to be a featured article (mainly because this subject is great and I just want to write a featured article for the fun of it and the Francis Drake article is something that is so big I don't even want to try it-- a small Drake article I think is worth the try). Anyhow, like I wrote above, this article has had a lot of contention and single purpose editors try to sneak in their websites like this one Sir Francis Drake Society. I worry about this nonsense affecting the featured article because it seems to give an opportunity for them. And I don't see other FA with this (but I have only looked at a couple of dozen). Plus it seems just like trivia, not something that a researcher or series reader would want. I fear it would just become a list, too. Maybe a RfC? Thinking about all that, what do you say?Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Here're my changes. Please take a moment to review them, and revert what you don't like. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Other than what I said earlier in this section about anchorage and keeping the phrase that makes it clear we are talking about this exact site, I think the changes are really great. Thanks again for your help.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891 Thanks so much for you help and the effort you have given. I responded to your comments by each one. And I don't know what I did that made my last comment show such little letters. . . sorry. And I will get to a lot of this, just not for a few days. I am starting to get fuzzy headed when I edit this article. But I will get back to it after a little break. Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Alright. The article looks pretty good. Your responses are sensible. I think with localized legacy, just having a short section like you do is good. It really corresponds to something like Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan, or another topic, and personally it seems fine. If you're really concerned about the section you could go to RfC, But if you don't feel it necessary, you can remove. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "This article is about England's legal claim to North America north of Mexico." Most of the article is about the territory and the search for the landing place, not the claim.

That is great. I changed it.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• "the continental area north of Mexico claimed by Sir Francis Drake". This too vague - see comment below.
• One of the contemporary maps would be very helpful as an image.

Yes, I know. The area claimed by Drake was not spelled out. I found maps that would work. Not sure exactly how to do it and will work on it later.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• You could try asking for help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop although last time I tried it no one responded. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• You keep to the convention that the lead is an unreferenced summary except for the second sentence. I suggest moving refs 1 and 2 to the main text.

I kind of wondered about that and changed it.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• It is a matter of personal taste, but I would move the part of the first paragraph after "in October 2012" to the end of the lead.

I see what you mean. I think that is a great idea.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Strait of Anián" It would be helpful to explain that this was thought to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic.

Yes. That is very helpful. Good detail I should have not missed.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• "circumnavigation would be required" It is a pedantic point, but it was not required - he could have sailed back the way he came.

More good details.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• "numerous speculative sites along the North American Pacific coast were investigated as Drake’s New Albion claim." Surely as the landing place, not the claim.

Well, kind of. If you look at Fringe theories on the location of New Albion, you can see that inland areas were also investigated to establish Drake's presence which would then let them look for a landing location. One guy claims to have found Drake's treasure, the plate of brass, and the post it was nailed to right at his house. Another found marked rocks that he connects with lines to prove that Drake did a formal survey of the land proving Drake landed there. So, the way I wrote it covers all of this.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• "In the late 1500s, and as part of ongoing tensions between England and Spain, Drake" This does not sound right to me. How about "In the late sixteenth century there was tension between Protestant England and Catholic Spain, and in the 1570s Drake"

Well, I'm not so sure. Protestant England and Catholic Spain can construe images of proper names for the nations. And the tensions were a lot more than religious. For sure, these were huge. And so were economic concerns that Spain was becoming too powerful. And there were some political concerns because Elizabeth refused to marry Philip which would have united them against France. So, that is why I am leaving it. Does that make sense.Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• "with the uncertain, plausible backing of his queen Elizabeth I of England" I do not know what plausible means here.

I know! I've had a hard time with explaining this idea because of the uncertainty but real possibility of Elizabeth's complicity. Does the change seem ok, explain it better?Pcvjamaica (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• "While understanding that completing this plan would anger King Philip of Spain, Drake knew Queen Elizabeth would stand by him" How about "Drake knew that his raids would anger King Philip of Spain, but Queen Elizabeth would stand by him"

Yes. It sounds good.Pcvjamaica (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• "As a result of his successful deeds against the Spanish, Drake’s ‘name and fame became admirable in all places, the people swarming daily in the streets to behold him, vowing hatred of all that durst mislike him.'" This quote should be attributed. I suggest moving it to the end of the paragraph as "According to John Stow, Drake's "name and fame became admirable in all places, the people swarming daily in the streets to behold him, vowing hatred of all that durst mislike him."

Yes. That is better.Pcvjamaica (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• The explanation that Drake's claim on the Pacific coast became the legal basis of charters across America to the Atlantic coast should be in the lead.

How could I miss this? Ughh! It is why New Albion is so important!Pcvjamaica (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about legacy

Is the Legacy part at the end ok? I wonder about the really minor stuff (like school, group, statue, beer, and street names) being exactly right there next to the big impact this had on future world history. I wonder if the world history impact should be much earlier in the article in it's own section. And named World Hitory Impact. I think I read that an article should have the most important information early and the least important at the end. And the legacy section might be renamed Local Legacies. That is why I ask. I am ok leaving it like it is if others think it is fine.Pcvjamaica (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the article like I just described and I think it really improves it. I really would like to know what other people think. I really do want to make this a featured article, so please help with your thoughts.Pcvjamaica (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

• "So, to the Queen, Drake handed over his log and a large map." This is a non sequitur. Maybe "Drake handed over his log and a large map to the Queen."

Yes, that is much better.Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Samuel Purchas, who saw the map in 1625 at Whitehall Palace, was able to describe it in such detail that it was possible for Jodocus Hondius to draw the map, Vera Totius Expeditionis Navticae, c. 1590." I do not understand this. You appear to say that he saw the map in 1625 and published it in 1590.
• "Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.[24] Years later, after England's destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588, in which Drake played a significant role, an official account of Drake's voyage by Richard Hakluyt was published." in 1607 and then years later in 1588?

Yes, a bit wordy and information not so necessary to the article.Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Identifying these as unique from Cermeño's 1595 wreck, San Agustin, the only other ship with Chinese porcelains attributed to Point Reyes has been a point of past uncertainty." I am not clear what you are saying here.

I took it out and it reads a lot better now.Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• "the Coast Miwok population dwindled to as low as 13 after European and American encroachment" This does not sound right as the Miwok were American.

I see what you mean. I changed it to encroachment of non indigenous people.Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Without firm evidence, reasons for the difference in numbers is conjecture." Is this really an issue? Errors in counting and the very high death rate among sailors at that time could easily account for it.

Yes. This is not necessary and it is implied earlier in the section.Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think that the land and climate section goes into excessive details which is not relevant to the article, but this is a matter of taste.
• This is an interesting article, but the writing needs copy editing. Some of it is excessively colloquial. I would put the historical impact section at the end, but other editors will probably disagree. I think the main problem is with the referencing. You should give more details of online sources, especially publishers - and authors where available. Some sources such as Olompali Park website are not reliable for statements about Drake. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at the article while thinking of you colloquial comment. Yes, I see that and will make some changes and seek others' suggestions. I think the Olompali Park website is a reliable source for information about the coin. That is because is seems that the California State Park historians know about as much as anyone. And I wonder if this coin and cup are even worth mentioning. They are really minor, almost never mentioned anywhere. Not any of the sources about Drake I found even mention them. They were on the article when I started work on it. What do you think of deleting that information? The Plate Of Brass seems important in a number of ways. Maybe we should keep it and dedicate the section to it. I also think the historical impact is in a good place and would like it to stay where it is.Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I would delete the coin and cup.

It would be helpful to give a link to the peer review as well as the article when asking people for comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! And I will give those links. I should have thought of that. I appreciate your help a lot.Pcvjamaica (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)