Talk:Jacobus Deketh/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I do not believe the article is at the GA level. My comments pertain to this version, not significantly different (though its prose is improved) from the version that passed GA. In essence, two problems combine: the article is entirely too short to provide decent coverage, and it is not based on enough reliable sources.

1. The article addresses the subject's career in only one paragraph. The man had a career all over the world, became a captain in two admiralties, and all we get is one paragraph.
2. The sourcing for that paragraph is odd, to say the least. One third of it is referenced to a dead link to the Fries Scheepvaartmuseum (a website of decent status, AFAIK), footnote 7. Another third is sourced via footnote 8 to the Nationaal Archief and inventory numbers are given; those numbers may be covered in the "Further reading" section, I don't know--but this information is not available to me, it doesn't appear to be correctly cited (those inventory numbers produce nothing on the archive's website or on one), and it would be a primary source to begin with. (BTW, how did the author get this information?). Finally, another part of the paragraph, and much of the article, is sourced to this--which is great and a fun read, but it indicates that most of a GA is sourced to one single newspaper article written by the director of the museum that holds the guy's portrait.
3. One final remark: this "Further reading" is strange. Some of the entries are written as if they are sources for the article. They are so incorrectly and inconsistently cited and formatted (lack of italics, quotation marks, Dutch and English text) that I can't figure out even what some of them are. I don't know what such a lengthy Further reading section is doing here in the first place--the section with actual references is very, very skinny section; and this Further reading section seems to consist mostly of primary sources, not all of which are accessible, so how this could be of use to the reader is not clear to me.

   Let me be clear: this is a nice and interesting little article, but it's not up to GA level, and it was promoted way too quickly and easily by an editor/reviewer who in my opinion is not seasoned enough. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why is he called "James" in the infobox? Is that a typo? Drmies (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

• I was asked about this article's prospects at GAN shortly before it was nominated, and I gave it as my opinion that it was not yet fully developed, which remains my opinion. A big red flag is the relative size of the Further reading section, none of which appears to have been consulted, and that the only sources cited are available on the Internet. This should never have been promoted to GA, as in my view it clearly fails GA criterion 3a. I'd be interested to know where that Further reading list came from. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad in passing the article. From now on i'll leave GA assessment to others. Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this guy even notable? I see nothing here that meets the WP:GNG.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by LadyofShalott

Criterion 3 for a Good Article says "Broad in its coverage" and part a specifies "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". This is I think the primary failing of this article. It is a nice start of an article, but there is no depth to it. To be a Good Article, I think Criterion 3 requires much more coverage than we are given here. That there is a lengthy further reading section, as pointed out by Drmies and Malleus, shows that more information is available. Is it hard to get ahold of? Probably so, but that is no excuse for promoting an article to GA status without having consulted and referenced that material. Since it was (mistakenly, I believe) promoted in this state, it needs to be delisted. LadyofShalott 20:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

comments by Graeme Bartlett

Since I wrote a large part of the text I will make a comment. Before it was promoted I wrote this in response to a proposal to nominate it:

"Well you are not restricted from nominating it, but I think it would not pass. Nominators are likely to be involved in the creation or editing an article, and they are expected to have a keen interest in fixing the issues raised. So you would need to be committed to every issue raised by the assessor. Before you nominate it I think you need to look at the captain's log books, over in Den Hague, quite close to where you are! (Well a ship ride away). You may be able to request the archive to do a scan for you to get it online. One issue is whether Deketh sailed on the Edam or not. And as far as I can remember you have not translated that newspaper ad for his estate. The idea is to make sure that coverage is complete, amongst other things."

As you can see I did not think it was ready for a GA without consulting more of the further reading bits. The further reading section was a bit of an under construction zone. It contained snippets of newspapers which are online and Dutch archive material, which is not yet online, but the indexing does support some facts. The newspapers shipping announcements themselves do not indicate notability but build up a history of movements of this captain. However the two more recent newspaper articles used as inline references do show notability as the coverage is substantial, independent and written by an expert on the topic. Since I wrote much of it I will abstain from a de-listing or keep-listing vote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't dispute notability, simply coverage. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Thine Antique Pen (TAP)

In the infobox he is called James Deketh, as that is what his name is translated into English, from Dutch. As I wrote a few thousand characters of it, I will abstain from the vote like Graeme Bartlett. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 13:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a GA Reassessment, not a vote. The final decision will be made by Drmies (talk · contribs). Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus. Indeed, Thine Antique Pen, it is worth your while commenting, especially since some valid questions are asked (about research and sourcing, for instance--where you got the information from the Nationaal Archief that is not publicly accessible via the internet). As the main writer and the one who proposed the GA nomination, you should be able to tell us, you are the expert. In other words, if anyone can explain what sources there are on this subject, which ones you used, and how they were accessed, it's you. I'm also interested in hearing from the reviewer, by the way. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The original English version was a google translate of the nl:Jacobus Deketh article, including the link rotted references, and automatic conversion of Jacobus to James. The Fries Scheepvaartmuseum web site still indexes the picture and has some very basic info, but I could not find any more information there that is why I added the Leeuwarder Courant references. The museum reference link is not really needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (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.