Talk:History of Tobago/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kim Post (talk · contribs) 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Initial review

What is in the article right now is good, but I am concerned that it does not fully cover such a broad topic. Specific points:

It is largely based on two sources. This produces something of an odd shift, with the second half of the article being very politics-focused. Are there other relevant reliable sources? Can Boomert's book be used for the 20th century?
- I expanded the sources, and used Laurance to fill some of the gaps in between. Unfortunately, Boomert's book is about the indigenous population of Trinidad and Tobago, and there aren't any records of indigenous people in Tobago after ~1800. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article often states what happened without context; does this reflect the level of detail in the reliable sources? For example, did anything in particular stimulate native attacks? Why did Tobago become subordinated to Trinidad? As someone hardly familiar with Tobago I need my hand held a little.
- Basically the context of Caribs attacks was two centuries slave raiding (by the Spanish and their allies to supply the pearl fisheries in Margarita), and involvement in the wars between the British, French, Dutch and Spanish in the 17th and 18th centuries. Beyond that, it's very hard to say, because the identity of the attackers wasn't always known by the settlers, far less their motivation (other than the obvious one of self defence). With respect to the relationship between Tobago and Trinidad and their eventual union, I think I have expanded on that enough. (Hopefully.) Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage ends in 1980. Is there nothing specific to say about Tobago since then? History of Trinidad and Tobago goes further.
- I've brought it forward to the end of the century. Beyond that, I think we're getting into current events instead of history. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Tobago get its name?
- Added. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect a low-level history to mention specific towns, historic buildings and monuments, cultural works, etc. where important, but this is mostly absent.
- Historically, there are two towns - Scarborough, and Plymouth (which is little larger than a village). As far as the rest goes - I mentioned the two main forts and the Main Ridge reserve (which is covered in more depth in the Main Ridge, Tobago article. Other things may be encyclopaedic, like the Arnos Vale Water Wheel or the relics excavated from the Action of March 1677, but I don't know how to fit them in (or if I could find sources). Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead could summarize the article in a bit more detail.
- I've expanded the lead. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "archaic period" appears in the lead but not in the body of the article.
- Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The latter half of the article could use images if available.
- I've had a hard time finding usable images. I added an image of ANR Robinson. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I expect the article shall expand a bit I will wait to do a full review of the prose, but it seems well-written. Kim Post (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kim Post: - Thanks for those observations. They're great (though not fun to hear, because you're right, there's a lot of work to do here). Sometimes it's hard to see the big picture when you're trying to write an article about as broad a topic as this in a week.

I will get to work on these. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda and Kim Post: How are we going with this? AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn and Kim Post: I made a good attempt to address the concerns, but I feel like I ran out of steam. I need to get back to work. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me know if I can help in any way. AIRcorn (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I feel like I've addressed these (it's always hardest to review your own writing), but it looks like Kim Post has been inactive since mid-September. I'm (obviously) not in any critical rush here, but at what point do you think I should return this to the GA queue? Guettarda (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking on a few of these. I will add you to my list. If Kim gets back before I get to it then they can continue their review. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very nice of you to offer. Guettarda (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn and Guettarda: I don't mind adding this to my list if Aircorn's is long. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I appreciate a review from anyone who's willing! Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kingsif. A previous one took a bit longer than expected. AIRcorn (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda and Aircorn: I've added comments below, if Aircorn still has things to add (or disagrees with me on points!), please add :) Kingsif (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

A good looking article in general. Sources look good. Minor examples of phrasing picked up by copyvio check, nothing out of the ordinary. Lead good. The images used are all free and used appropriately. I'll give it a read now for style/coverage/neutrality. Kingsif (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice if some of the red links got pages - geographical places like the Bon Accord lagoon and Milford particularly. Not necessary for GA.
- Agreed. The Bon Accord Lagoon is on my to-do list. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At They have been associated with the Ortoiroid people, does "they" refer to the settlements or Milford people?
Need to work on restructuring run-on sentences (throughout).
Is this using BritEng (per "artefacts", "labour")? It's fine if yes, maybe make a note because its in the Americas so someone may feel the need to come and change the spellings
- ton should be changed to tonne
  - Those are the standard spellings in Trinidad and Tobago English Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
those sites - which sites?
closer to the older end of the range of dates doesn't read very formal, a style improvement may be necessary, but it's not that bad
Maybe wikilink Common Era for those still working with BC/AD? Done 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
wikilink Orinoco Delta Done 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Given a brief copyedit for bits of grammar or to make run-on sentences more coherent
wikilink Hispaniola Done 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
If the third English colonisation attempt began in '42 but was only abandoned in '43, the sentence could be expanded to make this clearer
Move Zeeland wikilink to its first appearance Done 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
a Dutch colony established a colony needs a change Done 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Do the stats from 1662 include numbers for the friendly Amerindians that could be included?
- No, they don't. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it skims over some details of history that may warrant more coverage; do sources include more detailed info?
Is but were in fact humans with their own cognitive abilities set out in a source, or is this editorial description? If in a source, please add quotation marks, if not, please remove (as OR and POV).
- Not sure I agree that this is OR and POV, but I replaced it with Laurance's precise words. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of In 1899, Tobago's status was downgraded further, to that of a ward, a single administrative division of the colony isn't very neutral.
Chronology of the Union with Trinidad section is out of order
- The first paragraph I now see is meant to act as an introduction, but it isn't in a good summary style. Could be removed or made briefer, mentioning more of the history with other islands.
The last vestige of self government isn't really neutral, either
- It's a factual statement. The last remaining elements of self-government. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requirements for candidates were even higher - what were they? Is it worth it to include this?
- It wouldn't make sense to include them without including the specific property requirements for electors (which were fairly complex, and differed between town and country). It would unbalance the section to go into this kind of depth. Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It variously uses spaced and unspaced dashes; one style is preferable.
Was Pitt or Robinson the Tobago West MP? Done 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Style gets better with the more recent history sections
How is the NAR holding the balance of power with a minority in 1995? I think it's trying to say they were needed to form a coalition, but it reads like they were in charge.
Is minister extraordinaire the real title? If so, capitals needed and a wikilink (even a red link) would be appreciated.
- Yes, it was the title he was given as part of the deal for his support (and, perhaps more charitably, as befitting his status as former PM. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
on hold Overall, it's alright. I still get a sense it could be expanded, but the most pressing issue is that the style is quite poor. Run-on sentences abound, sometimes losing their grammatical structure partway through. The language used is informal at times, and I feel this has led to some perceived neutrality issues. I'd honestly suggest re-writing (or, at least, tweaking) most of it. Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. But thanks. I know my weakness when it comes to writing is my ability to edit stuff I'm too close to, and the piecemeal way I wrote this is the worst way to write. I'll get on it. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's bad in places. Guettarda (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I tried not to sound too harsh: with the re-writing, a lot of content is there, I don't mean to start over - more like, take the sections and reorganize what you have, I guess. Hopefully that will be good :) Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Finally have some time - the end of the term is always very rough. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Guettarda: Wanted to check in on how this is going? Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator not around since before Christmas, but if this article improves and is nommed, I'll happily review again! Kingsif (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to use this to keep track of the fixes. This isn't an attempt to re-open a failed GAN. Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]