Talk:Maritime fur trade/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review)

• pages needing disambiguation: Specie and Cassia

I linked to Specie (disambiguation) specifically because none of the links on that page seemed quite right. Looking for other options, perhaps Precious metal#Bullion would be better, as it includes metal ingots as well as coinage. Would there be a need to source the meaning and relevance to this historic era? Perhaps not the best source, but this page says: Initially, China showed an interest in purchasing three items from American merchants: Spanish bullion, ginseng from the Appalachian Mountains, and furs, particularly sea otter pelts. Bullion, also known as specie, was usually in the form of Spanish silver mostly mined in Latin America, and Silver, used as a commodity and not a currency, was not charged an import fee and also made it more desirable for Americans to use for exchanging goods. Or it could just say something like "bullion (also known as specie)" for the first use. Or perhaps we can assume readers know what "specie" means and not wikilink it at all? Hmm, well for now I'll just go with linking to bullion, "also known as specie"--the term specie seems more commonly used, from what I've read on the topic.

As for Cassia, as I understand it the term was used loosely at the time for various species. Perhaps it would be best to link to Cinnamomum while explaining it was called cassia at the time? I'll try it.

Made these changes. Pfly (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Native Hawaiian society was similarly effected by the sudden influx of Western wealth and technology" - "effected" should be "affected"

done.

• "extirpated" - it would be better if you used different wording

Because people might not know what it means? I'm not sure what other word would convey the same meaning. Perhaps a link to Local extinction, piped to extirpation? The main point being that species like the sea otter did not go extinct totally, just regionally. I assumed the word was generally understood as such. But I'll go ahead and put in the local extinction link.

No. Because it is not a word commonly used in this situation. To me it has the connotation of intentionally destroying. Was the intention of the hunters etc. to exterminate the otter populations? Xtzou (Talk) 12:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Origins

• "New Spain was being extended northward into Alta California and Spanish explorers were charting the coast north." - just seems clumsy

I've rewritten it, in the process expanding from one sentence to most of a paragraph. Pfly (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think this section needs more references

• "with thousands of islands, numerous straits and fjords, and a mountainous, rocky, often very steep shoreline. Navigational hazardous included persistent rain, high winds, thick fogs, strong currents and tides, and hidden rocks. Wind patterns were often contrary, variable, and baffling, especially within the coastal straits and archipelagoes, making sailing dangerous and frustrating. Early explorations before the maritime fur trade era—by Juan Pérez, Bruno de Heceta, Bogeda y Quadra, and James Cook—produced only rough surveys of the coast's general features. Detailed surveys were undertaken in only a few relatively small areas, such as Nootka Sound and Bucareli Bay. Russian exploration before 1785 had produced mainly rough surveys, largely restricted to the Aleutian Islands and mainland Alaska west of Cape Saint Elias. British and American maritime fur traders began visiting the Northwest Coast in 1785, at which time it was mostly unexplored. Although non-commercial exploration voyages continued, especially by the Spanish Navy, the maritime fur traders made a number of significant discoveries. Notable examples include the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Clayoquot Sound, and Barkley Sound, all found by Charles William Barkley, Queen Charlotte Strait by James Strange, Fitz Hugh Sound by James Hanna, Grays Harbor and the Columbia River by Robert Gray. George Dixon explored the Dixon Entrance and was the first to realize that the Queen Charlotte Islands were not part of the mainland." This whole section is unreferenced. It is written in a "literary" style so it needs references.

I'll work on improving the wording (yes, that first one is clumsy), and inserting references. Some of this text I had originally intended to put in the lead, so left references out. Much of the exploration stuff is mentioned again, with references, but other statements are not referenced, yes. Should be able to get to this over the next few days.

Added cites for most of these claims (all to one book, and some covering many pages since the statements are essentially summaries of fairly long bits of history). The bit about the coast being hazardous came from a book I need to get from the library again, so will take a few days. Pfly (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, added reference for the coast's hazardous nature. It was the same as the ref for the Simpson quote (labyrinth of waters). Apparently I put it after the quotation, knowing it was needed there, and forgot to add it again after the rest of the coast info. Anyway, this section should be well sourced now, I think.

Russian American

• " From 1843 to the founding of the Russian-American Company in 1799 over one hundred private fur trading and hunting voyages to North America, which in total garnered over eight million silver rubles" - This appears to be in the wrong order.

Oops, yes, should be 1743, not 1843. Fixing now. Thanks for reviewing. Pfly (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(will continue) Xtzou (Talk) 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(continuing)

British

• "not far short of mutiny" - what is the reference for this quote?

It's the source cited after the following sentence. I added another note just after the quotation to make it clear. Pfly (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Boom years

• "The trade's boom years ended around 1810, after which there was a long decline marked by increasing diversification." - I'm not clear what "diversification" means here.

I added the word "economic"--increasing economic diversification. Meaning the traders looked for and tapped new sources of raw materials and new markets, in addition to furs. I'm not sure how to make it clearer and am not good at economic terms and theory. I think the term "economic diversity" is fairly common, but can't say for sure. I tried to find a Wikipedia page on the topic, but only found a few related-but-not-quite-right pages. I could explain it, like above ("traders looked for and tapped new sources of raw materials and new markets"), but thought perhaps it would be enough to just say "economic diversification". Either way.. Pfly (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The Russian entry to the Northwest Coast, beyond Prince William Sound, was slow because of a shortage of ships and sailors. Yakutat Bay was reached in 1794 and the settlement of Slavorossiya, originally intended to be the colonial capital, was built there in 1795." I'm unclear why this paragraph about the Russians, starting with this sentence, is here. Are you covering just the Boom years for the Americans, British, and Russians in this section? The Boom years were 1790 to 1810?

I intended the Boom Years section to cover all nationalities, like the Origins section, but didn't make subsections. It would probably be clearer with subsections for each major participant (Russian, American, British). But your point about not reusing names for sections (Russian America is used twice already) makes me unsure how best to do this. Currently the "Origins" section has subsections "Russian America", "British", and "Americans". It would seem logical to use the same names for subsections in the "Boom years" section--but since that can't be done..any thoughts? Is there a guideline somewhere about how to repeat subsection topics without repeating subsection names? Thanks. Perhaps I'll ask this question at the appropriate Help Desk. Pfly (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made some structural changes, sections, subsections, etc, which among other things should have fixed this issue. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Russian-American Company (RAC) was incorporated in 1799, a year after Catherine's ukase of 1788, right? Just trying to keep the time line straight. (This is a very interesting article.)

Actually that's eleven years there. Catherine's ukase wasn't all that important in the grand scheme of things, but 1788 is a useful date for splitting the history up--being about when the British and Americans joined in. Pfly (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Diversification and transformation

• Always wondered how the Russian River got its name!
• "The Anglo-Russian treaty further clearly delineated the boundaries of Russian America, defining the coastal Alaska Panhandle and a line running north along 141° west longitude to the Arctic Ocean." - something is missing in this sentence

It was poorly written. I rewrote and slightly expanded it. Pfly (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hudson's Bay Company

• "In the wake of the North West Company's (NWC) forced merger into the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), in 1821," - is this discussed somewhere, or is this the first mention?

It's the first mention. The topic seemed tangential at best, so I didn't go into it. But I could add a few sentences explaining what happened and why the HBC wasn't involved in the North West before the merger. Maybe something about the NWC's failed hopes of establishing a China trade. Pfly (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Added quite a bit about the NWC, its efforts in the Pacific Northwest, merger into the HBC, etc. Also expanded a bit on the HBC's early efforts with the coast trade, managing to incorporate one of the remaining "See also" links into the main text (Cadboro (schooner)). Pfly (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The new North West trade

• I became lost when I reached this section. I think I need a refresher at the beginning as to who the major players are and what the time period being discussed is.

Yea, it gets messy here. I'm thinking how best to fix. I might make the "New North West Trade" into a subsection under the "Diversification and transformation" section. A bit a structural change might make everything clearer. Pfly (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Structural changes to section and subsection names and hierarchy done. I moved the New North West Trade section into a subsection called "American methods and strategies" under the "Diversification and transformation" section. I think this makes better sense and hopefully will help readers keep track of the major players and so on. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Significance

• "Fur bearing animals had been devastated, especially sea otters, which by 1850 were virtually extinct throughout the North West Coast and found only in the Aleutian Islands and California." Is there a switch to the present in this sentence?

It was a bit awkward. I split it into two sentences and rewrote slightly. Pfly (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• The section heading "Russian America" is used twice, which is against the MOS heading rules.

Changed one of the Russian American subsection names. Will do further structural stuff soon. Pfly (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

See also

• It would be better to integrate as many of the wikilinks there into the text of the article. That shows that they really are related to it.

Heh..I was worried the article was approaching the "too long" point as it was, and doing this would make it longer. But I could certainly do so! Some of the links are not really important, like Kyakhta Russian-Chinese Pidgin. Perhaps some of these should just be taken out. Pfly (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the "see also" links have been either deleted or incorporated into the main text by this point. A few remain, but it seems much better now. The remaining links are mostly broad in topic and seem appropriate as "see also" links. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an extremely interesting article, filled with great information. I really enjoyed it. Xtzou (Talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reply on headings and organization

I have done some thinking also, and the solution is not readily apparent to me. The MoS actually says "try" not to reuse headings and gives the disadvantages, see Article titles, headings, and sections. You could ask somewhere, as I have gotten good advice by asking at a help desk. Xtzou (Talk) 20:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

• How did this happen (from Lead) "For New England, the maritime fur trade and the significant profits it made helped revitalize the region, contributing to the transformation of New England from an agrarian to an industrial society, especially textile manufacturing." What would furs have to do with textiles?

Xtzou (Talk) 21:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it slightly to clarify: the money made by New Englanders through the maritime fur trade was invested in New England's industrial development, especially textile mills. Btw, thanks for all your edits, much appreciated! Pfly (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• "extirpated" - to pull out by the roots

My reservations about "extirpated" is that it implies intention. A gardener extirpates weeds. Was the wild life destroyed intentionally? That is, it was the goal of the traders to extirpate the otters? Xtzou (Talk) 13:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

The article looks great. Just a few additional comments.

• Reservations about "extirpated" (above) are not deal-killing.

You're right--the standard dictionary definition relates the word to extermination and sounds like intentionality would be part of it. I've seen the term used a lot in ecology and history sources without implied intentionality. Or at least without the goal of local extinction--the sea otter hunters (and beaver and others) knew their actions were causing local extinction but their goal was making money, not causing extinction. That said, you convinced me! I hadn't thought about it much until now. After reading dictionary definitions it looks like the ecology type usage is somewhat...specialized to the field. I've never come across the word outside of the ecological/historical sense. It's a ten dollar word anyway--probably not familiar to many people. So, it's gone now. Pfly (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• A few more references in the "Origins" section and all will be well.

Will get to this shortly. Pfly (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm wondering in the "Diversification and transformation" section if the heading "Russians" could be something like "Russian territories" or "Russian treaties" as you have come up with good qualifiers in "American methods and strategies".

Yea, I'm not satisfied with several of the headers and have been trying to think of better titles. It's hard! That subsection called "Russians" currently has just two paragraphs with info on Fort Ross and the ukase and treaties of 1821, 24, 25. But other info could be added. I would like to someday add another paragraph or two about Russian-American activity in this later era. So a broader name seems useful, but harder to think up. Maybe "Russian territories" could do for now. Hmm.. Pfly (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just made some section name changes. I think they are sensible. Under "Boom years" changed "Russian-American Company" to "Russian America" (the text contains pre-RAC info and works into the founding of the RAC and a brief overview). Under "Diversification and transformation" changed "Russians" to "Russian-American Company" (the text is about the RAC specifically, post-founding; there's more info about the RAC I'd like to add someday, makes sense here). Under "Significance" changed "Russian America" to "Alaska" (not quite as happy with this change, but wanted to use "Russian America" earlier on page, and since Russian America's fate was to become Alaska, more or less, the name seemed reasonable). Anyway, still pondering the names, but perhaps these are better than before. Pfly (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I made a couple of heading changes that you are free to revert. I think the heads are heading (excuse the pun) in the right direction. I'm not worried about them. The only thing holding up the GA is a few more references, especially under "Origins" and for any new unreferenced material. Xtzou (Talk) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I just added a bucket of sources to "Origins". Seems well sourced now. I thought the library was open later, but it is about to close, so I'll be offline for a few hours at least. Grr, it also means I don't have time to browse the interesting reference books I found. Ah well. Pfly (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've added more references throughout. It seems like everything is pretty well sourced, although I'll continue checking. There are some paragraphs that touch on multiple ideas and have just one footnote at the end--in those cases the note applies to the entire paragraph. Any cases where the ref ought to be repeated within a paragraph? Also, the "Significance" has a "lead" paragraph with no references--it's intended to be like an article's lead: it is just a summary of the sections made points, which are detailed below with references. Pfly (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments, Part II

• I know that you have worked very hard on this article, so I hesitate to express any criticism. My suggestions now have to do with the article organization. Under Origins, the United States is a relatively short section. Under Boom years, the section American ascendancy is short. However, under Diversification and transformation, the section American methods and strategies is huge. Any chance that some of the info in this huge section would fit under the other two short ones?
• Also, the section Hudson's Bay Company is huge, and either needs subsections or some of the info moved to a daughter article.
• The article remains fascinating to read, but perhaps it is getting over detailed (I'm not sure) and daughter or sub articles would help out.
• Also, the writing is high quality and the referenced problem appears to be fixed. But you probably should have a Bibliography for the books used as references, as it is difficult to ferret them out. For example, what is the reference Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods?

Xtzou (Talk) 15:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Final comments, hopefully

• I have added a couple of heading as trial balloons. To me, having such headings make all the difference. If you don't like the ones I added, perhaps you could add others that would function better. I think the article is good to pass GA. Xtzou (Talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's work fine! I was thinking you were suggesting a major cut of the Hudson's Bay Company subsection(s), and was pondering how to do it but also have not had any time lately. Sorry for poking and then not having time. In any case I will add a "Works cited" or "Bibliography" section with the major books listed, to make the references easier to find. Pfly (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has more information than I can absorb easily. It is an eyeopener. If you are considering taking it to FAC, please go to peer review first, as the standards are different than for GA. This is an article I will read over and over. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context broadly

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the general topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

A wonderful article. Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.