Talk:New Netherland/GA2

GA Review

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

Comments by Rubenescio

This article needs a little work. I will give some recommendations per section.

Part 1

Infobox

*Shouldn't the seal be placed in the infobox? *Shouldn't there be a flag in the infobox? Flags do not appear in info box though they have been input. Technical assistence needed to do this as well moving seal into it.`20:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Was there an official currency in the colony? This information should be in the infobox

Fur pelts, sewant, coin, as well as barter were all used much more than the guilder/florin The guilder (Dutch: gulden), represented by the symbol ƒ or fl., was the currency of the Netherlands from the 13th century until 2002, but inclusion would be misrepresentative.

• The information about the languages needs a reference refs added

• Is it a "colony" or a "colonial province"? Or are those the same?

a link has been made to colony

• Is there a map that better shows the location of the colony in the continent?

NOT AVAILABLE

• Should "Director-General" be written with a hyphen? Rubenescio (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2009
• Why are only three Directors-General in the list? Rubenescio (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2009

See below for"Director-General".Djflem (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

• Should there be a hyphen in "Nieuw-Nederland"? see below

*"Dutch" should be wikilinked to "Dutch language" *"colonial province" should be wikilinked to "colony"

• The wikilink redirects in this section should be fixed
• I think all thumb images in the article should have normal thumb size

*"North America" should only be wikilinked once

• I think the 1614 map should be moved down to the Origins section, where its cartographer is mentioned

Either spelling for Nieuw Nederland, with or without hyphen, is acceptable and used in contemporary Dutch. Dutch language Wikipedia uses that with hyphen.Djflem (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Origins

• This section needs additional references
• Is the "Halve Maen" truly a "yacht"? Same for "Craen" and "Vos"?
• Can an image of the "Halve Maen" be added?

included in Halve Maan article, which is linked

• *"Netherlands" and "Jamestown" should be wikilinked only once
• *"The Netherlands" should be written as "the Netherlands"
• *The wikilink to "Cornelius Jacobsen Mey" should be corrected Rubenescio (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009

Rubenescio (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Some tasks completed. Yacht is appropriate in Dutch, but perhpas not in English, will consider that and if indeed image should be addedDjflem (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

• Dates should match lead section
• End date should match article of successor state
• 1 redirect should be fixed

Lead section

• Was the colonial province part of the Republic or private property of the WIC alone? Or can such a distinction not be made?
• Dates should be clear and match infobox/successor state
• 5 redirects should be fixed

Origins

• This section needs additional references
• 3 redirects should be fixed
• 2 ambiguous links should be fixed
• Second wikilink to Asia should be removed

Development

• This section needs additional references
• "Ijseren" should be spelled "IJseren" (IJ (digraph))
• Whitespace should be removed
• 27 redirects should be fixed
• 1 ambiguous link should be fixed
• Can the number of main article/see also links be reduced?
• "c1639" in image caption should be spelled "c. 1639"
• The subheading "New Netherland Company and Dutch West India Company" could be changed into "Chartered trading companies"
• Could the word "parallels" be wikilinked?
• An image of Fort Nassau could be added
• The image of the WIC headquarters could be downsized
• An image of the Iroquois and/or Algonquian people could be added, preferably a contemporary image
• The establishment of Fort Nassau is mentioned thrice

Rubenescio (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some edits, mostly minor ones, and removed twelve bullets from this list. Rubenescio (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Review by Rubenescio

This article is well written, but needs some work before I can pass it as a good article. The most obvious improvement would be adding more citations in order to pass good article criterion 2. For now I will fail it. Rubenescio (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)