Wikipedia:Peer review/Galley/archive1

Galley

I've been working on this article on and off for over a decade now, including dabbling in various other related articles related to specific galley types, battles, etc. I'm most likely aiming for an FAC eventually. Overall, just looking to make the article the closest it can get to being perfect.

I would like to make the article as accessible as possible while still being exhaustive and detailed about the topic.

I'm aware that the article probably doesn't conform to WP:CITESTYLE and possibly other format standards. I would greatly appreciate suggestions on best practice and technical solutions, such as appropriate citation templates to use and such.

Thanks in advance,

Peter ^Isotalo 19:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist

On citations, strongly advise using templates to help you keep things clear and consistent. In the bibliography, you can swap into the very user-friendly {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and so on, and then use {{sfn|author|date|p=}} or {{sfn|author|date|pages=}} to create the actual footnote. You've actually ended up following the style of those templates fairly closely, so it wouldn't make too many changes except making the referencing easier for readers to navigate. However, it then becomes a lot easier for future editors, or indeed yourself, to make changes in a way that stays consistent.

Getting more into the weeds, if you want a reference that's more than just an author, date and pages, use {{refn|Text of note}}. You can embed SFN templates into that to cite facts, or use {{harvnb|author|date|p/pages=}} to have the software write out the citation (with a link to the source) in text.

You might want to consider making the use of citation in the text a little more granular as well. Most paragraphs are only cited once, to a large page range from a single source. If different parts of the paragraph come from different pages, it's easier for the reader to follow the paper trail if you cite them as they come up (e.g., cite the first sentence to page 1, the second to page 2, and so on). However, I'd also be a little concerned if large chunks of the article were simply following a single source: has nobody else written anything that could improve on that source's presentation of that piece of the puzzle? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the pointers. There doesn't seem to be all that many paragraphs relying on just one note or source, but I'll run through them and see if anything sticks out. If you see any particular example that you suspect might be iffy, please let me know.

Regarding the formatting of notes, is there any combo of templates that can be used that would allow for notes to be kept together even if they include both refs and comments, or just several source refs? A few examples of this currently in the article would be notes 2, 3, 5, 6 and 78.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

For note 2 (one or more citations and commentary), use REFN: either write it exactly as it is or put the web links into the references and do something like See for example {{harvnb|Source|date|pages}} and {{harvnb|Source|date|pages}}..

Note 3 (multiple citations, no commentary) works well with the SFNM template: I'd write it as {{sfnm|1a1=Pryor|1y=2002|1pages=86–87|2a1=Anderson|2y=1962|2pages=37–39}}. That looks like .

References

For note 79 (cited explanatory note), I'd do {{refn|The British naval historian Nicholas Rodger describes this as a "crisis in naval warfare" which eventually led to the development of the galleon, which combined ahead-firing capabilities, heavy broadside guns and a considerable increase in maneuverability by introduction of more advanced sailing rigs.{{sfn|Rodger|2003|p=245}} }} That gives you

Are there any use cases not covered there? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

References

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. But "Rodger (2003), page 245" is supposed to come directly after in the same note. Will sfn always create a separate note, even if it's embedded in a template like refn? Peter ^Isotalo 19:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I use the separate footnote to avoid inline citation, which is discouraged: the {{harvnb|author|date|page}} template covers a lot of uses, giving you something like this: Author 2023, p. 1 You can use that when you want to call upon or refer to a source in flowing text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Everything should be converted now. Harvnb for monographies and harvc for the anthologies. Had to make an exception for Glete's chapters in in Norman (2000) because it conflicted with Warfare at Sea.

Regarding the granularity of the citations, I can't see any obvious issues. Most paragraphs rely on more than one citation and usually more than one source. Most citations are across only a handful of pages and I expect anyone who wants to verify the content has to be capable to read more than a single page in one go.

Regarding basing specific chunks of text on specific sources, I believe the sources I've cited are good and representative of accepted research. If there are other perspectives on this or that statement, I'd say I simply haven't come across them yet. Peter ^Isotalo 14:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The granularity is less of an issue than I thought: most paragraphs have at least two citations. One notable exception is the first paragraph of "Early History": I'm sure that Wachsmann is an excellent source, but with an eye on the FA standard of comprehensiveness, I'd be rather surprised if she's the first and last word in the field.

I'd also note that that entire "early history" section focuses entirely on the Mediterranean (mostly the Eastern Med): did nobody outside that region make or use oared vessels?

A few sources in the bibliography are throwing a citation error as uncited: Mallett, Basch and Frost, Bass, D'Agostino and Medas, Rodgers and Wade.

If Glete has written two sources in 2000, set the years for each as 2000a and 2000b (usually, depending on alphabetical order of the titles). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Took care of the unused refs by moving them to "Further reading". Problem is that Glete is actually in Norman (2000) and for some reason, the code is interpreting the "year=2000" as referring to Glete, not Norman.

Wachsmann's chapter on the early history is from a rather broad reference work that is part of a series that is intended to present well-established research and not so much individual theories (at least that's how it's presented). I'm going to have a closer look at the "Early history" part and see if I can flesh it out with other works, though.

Regarding use of the early history of "oared vessels" outside the Med, it all boils down to what is or isn't considered a "galley". It's generally defined fairly specifically as "the large-ish long rowed vessel based on Med traditions". But I wouldn't mind stating more of the obvious to avoid confusing either readers or reviewers. From your perspective, is there anything in this regard that you'd like to see clarified in the article text? Peter ^Isotalo 08:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Early oar use outside the Mediterranean: I'm still attempting to gain a definitive understanding on this at present, but from looking at McGrail's Boats of the World from the Stone Age to Medieval Times (ISBN 0-19-927186-0), the archaeological and iconographic evidence is that the Mediterranean is the place with early oar use. The Hjortspring boat (iron age) was found with paddles and there is no evidence of pivot points for oars. Earliest evidence of Northern European use of oars may be the Nydam boats (AD 310). Clearly this is after some Northern European exposure to maritime technology from Rome – I presume that indicates a big gap in the archaeology. Vessels such as the Dover Bronze Age Boat the Ferriby Boats are thought to have been propelled by paddles. There is some use of oar in Mesopotamia, but that postdates anything in the Mediterranean and was on hide covered river boats that don't really fit the description of "galley". The prehistory of maritime technology in the Asia and Pacific regions is very short of evidence for anything. I am not aware of any early use of oar there, though places like Vietnam have a more recent tradition of forward facing rowing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the Glete problem: is there perhaps confusion between author-last= and editor-last= (etc) in the citation? A sfn to Glete|2000|p=x should work fine even if the work is in an edited volume, as long as Glete is listed as the author.

If we're going to define a galley as a Mediterranean-style vessel, that solves most of these comprehensiveness concerns: however, I would then encourage that we're very explicit about that and bring in plenty of HQRS which make the same judgement. I'd also suggest being very clear about the difference between paddles and oars, and so why e.g. Polynesian canoes don't count as galleys. Searching "Chinese longboats" on Google Books gets a lot of hits that seem relevant, but I can't tell from what I can see there whether these would really cross into being galleys as we want to define them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Harvc apparently generates a chapter "anchor" defined as "Glete 2000". And then all the harvnb invoking "Glete 2000" get confused and generate this: "harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFGlete2000". So it's either making an exception for the two Glete chapters in Norman in the notes themselves or listing all chapters for all authors as separate refs in the bibliography. I did that for Morisson & Gardiner but it got awfully dinky and I recall someone complaining about it. Thoughts?

I'll try to bolster the "Terminology" section, then. Because I assume that's where this belongs, right? Peter ^Isotalo 09:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Strangely, finding a definition of an oar is difficult (OED is completely useless). From the discussions of McGrail (Sean Mcgrail & Anthony Farrell (1979) Rowing: aspects of the ethnographic and iconographic evidence, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 8:2, 155-166, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.1979.tb01111.x) and McKee (McKee, Eric (1983). Working Boats of Britain, Their Shape and Purpose (1997 ed.). London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0 85177 277 3. pp 135-139) I think one can confidently state that the difference between an oar and a paddle is that the former is always operated with a pivot point that is attached to, or is part of, the hull of the boat, whilst a paddle is held in the hands. The pivot point acts as a fulcrum, with the oar acting as a lever. The pivot point transfers the propulsive force to the hull. This applies not only with rowing, but also with Stern sculling. (As an aside, this is a different take on leverage in most situations, where you want the fulcrum to remain in one position and to move an object at the end of a lever. With rowing, your objective is to move the fulcrum.) If it needs further differentiation, a paddle uses the operator's body to apply propulsion to the hull, with no permanent mechanical connection between the paddle and boat being part of the method of propulsion.

I have strong reservations about defining a galley as just a Mediterranean type of vessel. Casson is the first source that comes to mind to support this idea. I think we need to be clear that a galley is a type of rowed vessel and that that several types of vessel have that name applied to them. A trireme, for instance, is very different from a Venetian galley. Similarly, and per Casson, some vessels without a Mediterranean origin can be termed galleys. As with much nautical terminology, the same term can mean several things and each one of those things can have several descriptive terms applied to them. It is possible to handle this diversity within Wikipedia (see, for instance Yawl or Cutter (boat) (which still needs some work)). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

For your Glete problem: the multiple targets problem usually happens when you've mixed up page= and pages=. Make sure that page= or p= is only used when it's a single page, not a range; use pages= in other cases. The error isn't helpfully named, unfortunately. As long as all of your full citations follow the right system (using last= or author-last= for the author of the chapter), and you then use SFN with author|year|pages, it should always work. If you've got multiple Glete 2000s, for example, you'll need to mark them as 2000a, 2000b and so on. If you want to "break" it and make a subpage with the "broken" code, I'm happy to take a look and see if I can fix it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to have a go!

I've backed up the the definition with several standard sources, including the occasional "other" uses of the term "galley" that addresses what ThoughtIdRetired comments on. There doesn't seem to be much confusion among maritime historians how the term should be defined.

Not sure I see the need to stress "no paddles" unless it's actually common for paddled boats to be called "galleys". Are there actually examples of this? Peter ^Isotalo 18:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

To me, it's more about heading off likely misunderstandings from readers coming in without background knowledge: put another way, what do we do for the reader who says "surely the Chinese had boats before they had sails?" or "what about Polynesia?" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I totally understand what you're going for. I've noted a few attempts to argue for Vikings, Irish, Indonesians, etc also having "galleys", but they all boil down to people simply assuming that the term is defined purely functionally, ie "elongated ship propelled with oars, heavily manned and well-suited for war". And then they argue that anything even vaguely fitting that description should be included in the same article. And that's not unlike how Europeans themselves historically described similar vessels. But that's not how maritime historians treat the term, even if they acknowledge some exceptions. Thinking that this is in some ways similar to how "medieval" is sometimes used more broadly outside Europe, but it doesn't mean that Middle Ages includes all of world history from 500-1500.

Preemptive super-obviousness is relevant sometimes. But in this case, isn't it enough to just specify how "galley" is defined in historical research under "Terminology"? Peter ^Isotalo 10:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarise the key aspects of the article, in proportion with their prominence in the article and in HQRS, and be able to stand on its own for those readers who don't read the whole thing. It sounds as if the question of what a galley is - and whether e.g. Viking longboats count - does occupy quite some space in both of those, and so it should be part of the lead. Of course, that discussion will be briefer than the main article, but the MOS tells us not to rely on people reading on to the main event. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Took a swing at the lead and tried to match it roughly to cover everything under each of the major headings. The definition is tackled in the first paragraph so it'll be hard for anyone to miss it. Peter ^Isotalo 19:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll be logged off Wikipedia for about three weeks starting tomorrow. Feel free to add any further pointers here until then. Unless there are some major points of discussion or something that requires a lot of extra work, I'll close down the PR when I get back and move on to an FAC. Peter ^Isotalo 14:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)