Talk:Trade route

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the Hanseatic League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Good article Trade route has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Message

Sea Routes are the parts of sea shores which have following qualities : 1. They should have the loading capability. 2. They should have trading type all facilities.

[edit] Expansion

I have expanded the article and written a new intro. However what bothers me is that this article in particular followed a format of a definition and the a List of the trade routes. Don't get me wrong, a list is important and interesting for any reader but this article is not about a list of trade routes but about trade routes and their history and impact in development of civilizations etc.

I'll try to write a short, soured passage about the importance of trade routes to various civilizations and the political and cultural impact of these routes. Also will try and check for typos and phrasing once I recover from the current phase of fatigue due to the recent edits.

Havelock the Dane 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I couldn't keep away. I have created a section named "Strategic significance of trade routes" and plan to expand it and then place it accordingly once I get the citations for strategic importance during ancient times (right now we have Tiglath-Pileser III etc. but not enough). I also plan to create and expand another section called "Cultural significance of trade routes" which would deal with the cultural aspects. Then we can actually have a intro, a cultural section, strategy section and put the list of trade routes below them (every section in the list already has a separate article for it; this list here is essentially a summation for someone who doesn't like the details and should be treated as such).
Sorry for the long, rambling post; I'm just tired. Havelock the Dane 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Done, I have created a "Significance of trade routes" section with two subsections (cultural and strategic). I wanted to create a "Material" subsection but that's already covered in the main articles and we would just be repeating that information.Havelock the Dane 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  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:

I failed this article (in terms of its coverage and NPOV) because it either fails to adequately define itself or is severely lacking major aspects of trade routes. Is it limited to overland trade? The article doesn't make this clear. There are obviously maritime routes of trade as well that are very important. But even if the article gives a clearer scope, it consists solely of historical information on a few major routes. Where is any information on how trade routes operate? What was the first recorded trade route (perhaps I missed this)? Why did trade routes come about? Also, I feel as if the article leans far to heavily to the classical Asian and European routes such as the Silk road, including it and others to the detriment of coverage of the Americas and Africa. This is an unacceptable undue weight on one significant point of view on the topic, thus (probably accidentally) violating NPOV. While the writing and the referencing of what is here now is great, the article either needs to be significantly expanded or to narrow its scope. VanTucky Talk 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the article failed the review due to the following points:
1. Lack of coverage of maritime trade routes, which gives the false impression that overland trade was the be-all-end-all of trade until the advent of the modern times.
2. Lack of coverage of early trade routes and role of governments (or powers) of the day.
3. Operation of trade routes: taxes, stoppages, arrangements of security, currencies, barter etc.
4. Heavy dependence on European and Asian routes while neglecting American and African routes.
I'll try to address all of the above mentioned concerns as soon as possible. Kindly add any additional concerns if I missed them.
Regards,
Havelock the Dane Talk 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Those would all be great improvements, and I think they'd make the article a lot more authorative & interesting. Also, the generalizations about trade routes in modern times seem a bit awkward and could benefit from either being removed (by a narrower focus) or expanded on.
However, I must say that this article already seems like a good piece of work, so another approach to getting the GA status might be resubmission until a more generous reviewer looks at the article. (For comparison, here's a page that reached GA status today: The Trouble with Trillions.)
--Wragge 16:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many ways to spend one's energy and use one's time at Wikipedia. Some of them are both more stimulating and more productive than struggling to achieve "good article" status. --Wetman 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to add that those points really do not amount to that much of work (I hope to have most of the work done in this sitting). The reason why I would like to see this article reach GA is because with a little effort, this article has the potential to become something that people from all cultures can be proud of, and a WP:GA tag can ensure that editors will guard the quality of the content from time to time. There are some things that connect cultures and for some reason they are neglected here on WP.
I try to reserve my contribs to complete rewrites of a few articles that I find connect cultures in some way or the other (even if that means a British hunter starting a park later called Jim Corbett National Park after him). That way, I can be sure that WP readers have a few articles about things that cross borders in the oddest (and most pleasant) of ways.
Havelok ۞ 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing concerns

In my latest round of edits I have tried to address the following issues:

  • Worked on the emergence of trade routes.
  • Created Trans Saharan trade section (I can't seem to find any American route of global note prior to the modern times).
  • Created Roman-India routes section, a section based on maritime trade.
  • Addressed the "hows and whens" to some extent in the "Background" section.

I know a thorough inspection for repeated wikilinks etc. and an image for the Trans Saharan trade section is due but before that could I get some more specifics on what more needs to done? Will a greater expansion of the "Background" section suffice since the governments and the political/military situations are covered in the sections themselves ?

Regards,
Havelok ۞ 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We have pre-Columbian America in the article now. Havelok ۞ 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And the "Development of trade routes" section ought to cover most of the problems mentioned above. Will check for grammar etc. later. Havelok ۞ 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Done and renominated. Looking forward to feedback and suggestions to further improve the article.
Havelok ۞ 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA nomination

You've clearly completed all the work, and honestly I'm amazed that you did the job you did in less than a week's time (when comparing to most holds). I completely admit that in consideration of your dedication to the article, I should have just held this one. So my apologies, and congrats! VanTucky Talk 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Being a workaholic can only get you got me so far. Acting upon advice from someone who knows knew what he is was talking about makes made the necessary difference.
With Regards,
Havelock the Dane Talk 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime / Inland

Shoulndt both these topics have their own section each? As it is Inland canals are part of the Maritime section but the feeling I get is that it was just pasted there, It seems out of place.

PS. Nice job on the article Havelock, its quite good. I'm sure that after a few tweaks it can be renominated and achieve FA status. RIP-Acer (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)