This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Archaic globalization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Archaic globalization was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here. |
The article currently states that the focus of archaic globalization is the 16th century, but History_of_globalization#History suggest it covers times up to the 16th century (I also find the latter assertion to be more correct, but it does appear that sources have varying definition of archaic globalization, as they differ on where it begun (and what came before it)). Source for 1400-1600 as the timeframe for archaic globalization; source for 16th century as the time frame for archaic glob., source that seems to use archaic globalization for the times of proto-globalization (up to 19th century), source for the archaic globalization being simply "before the 1600", another one for the same use, source using arch. glob. in the context of 100 AD, source using arch. glob. in the context of the Roman Empire. So I'd suggest defining archaic globalization as the time before 17th century (1600s), and noting that most scholars stress its time frame as from around 15th to 16th centuries, although some use it for even earlier periods (such as the times of the Roman Empire). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I will research how historically archaic globalization emerged. The different factors that fueled it as well as the factors that caused it to not continue into present day. I will explore different historical events that shaped the ideals of this topic. I have two resources but hope to find more once I am able to get to the library tomorrow. Resources: In defense of globalization By Jagdish N. Bhagwat
:Globalization and the Great Convergence: Rethinking World History in the Long Term Northrup, David, 1941
Bfowler513 ( talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)B. Fowler
I'm going to add details on the trade patterns and routes that appeared during the period of archaic globalization. The resources I'm going to utilize are "The Sociology of Globailzation" by Luke Martell and "Globalization in World History" by Anthony G. Hopkins Sandere0 ( talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get on here. I have decided that I will be comparing Archaic globalization with other types of globalization and give a couple examples as well for Archaic globalization.-- Corey F. Coreyj33 ( talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I think it would be a good idea to create a new section within the article labeled something like the phases of globalization. In this section we can define and give examples of such phases as archaic globalization (of course), proto-globalization, and modern globalization. In this section I believe it would also be beneficial to just list the time periods of each and maybe just a brief explanation. Sandere0 ( talk) 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good to me Sarah. I can actually put my examples that I was thinking about doing into that section. I also think once we have all of the information typed out, we can get together and put it all in order into different sections. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarah I think that sounds good too. I have a lot of research on the archaic period and pre 16th century. Does somebody want to take the proto-globalization period and modern? This could possibly be a good way to strucute the article? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bfowler513 (
talk •
contribs)
20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
If you look at my question about the history below--should we organize specific states according to these three different "transitions" of archaic globalization?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Haha, my name is Rachel, but it's cool. And Bridget, i'll take the proto and modern period. As you guys can see i wrote a little on the three basic principles of archaic globalization (I found that in the Bayly information), I dont know how to create a new section within the article, do you think someone could go in and fix that, or advise me on how its done? Sandere0 ( talk) 10:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is a good idea as well but I do think that information should be in a separate section than the archaic globalization history one and possibly towards the end of the article Ebw7 ( talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
OMG...Rachel I totally knew that but looked at your user name real quick and for some reason thought it was sarah hahahaha whoops. Along with my section on examples and explaining some of them. I was also going to compare differetnt types of globalization> so should i just compare the proto and modern to archaic too then or si someone going to add that into a new section??-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys,
I am finding that the required book for the course is pretty helpful for our topic. I am still having some trouble finding more sources but if I stumble upon something good I will let you know.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 00:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Hey.. where did you find that book at? I was looking for other sources too but there are literally none out there. Im going to have to limit my information to that "googlebooks" I guess. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I was just looking and actually found some good books on google for information. it may or may not help you out but here are the links http://books.google.com/books?id=MzgvKYQa4HEC&lpg=PA33&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false and http://books.google.com/books?id=8pi2kwCmzDoC&lpg=PA6&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I seem to be having trouble citing my references on the edit page. I can't figure out how to cite it without it showing up in the article. If I select to add references it tells me I do not have it in the proper order. Anybody know how it should go?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)B.Fowler
Look how I cited stuff for this portion, it should help. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Economic_globalization&action=edit§ion=2 Tyod ( talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, looking at your references it seems like you could be well served by using the Rp template for citing multiple pages from the same source. I think it would help to condense your reference section and streamline the article overall. If you'd like, you can see how it works on the article our group is working on.-- Rsoruss ( talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A possible recommendation is to have a history section. Also, you could possible organize it in a manner to have show an evolution or archaic globalization to present day globalization and the the differentiations between the two. I think this would solidify the topic and give a nice transitory progression to what we see in modern society. In addition, a comparison might be effective as well. Tyod ( talk) 17:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
There are many different countries that are touched upon during early globalization. Is it more important for me to touch upon the broad spectrum of the topic or go into detail about certain actors?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
I think this section needs to be broken down because everything we are writing about is history and I think it might be getting confusing, Any suggestions on what the sections should be? Ebw7 ( talk) 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you're doing a nice job with the page. Some sections are a little awkward as the paragraphs only contain one sentence. Also it seems there may be some editing issues with the section "the distinction between food..ect." Obviously these problems can be easily ironed out. Seems like a comprehensive summary of the history of archaic globalization so far. Good work! -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you guys could divide it up a little better. I was thinking have the history then maybe have a section about what goods were traded, means of trade, etc... It just seems to get a little cluttered and hard to read, but I'm an idiot and it's just a suggestion! Rsg20 ( talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I made a post on the Globalization page mentioning our article and that we are welcoming all and any help! Sandere0 ( talk) 12:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! I got some very helpful books from the library yesterday. Google books was very helpful to me. Articles on out topic seem to be slim to I guess look more towards the books.
67.95.168.226 ( talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Hey Guys,
If you look at the economic development page it can be useful when thinking about different phases of archaic development. I think by tomorrow night if we all have most of our groundwork that will be useful and we can start arranging the page in a better manner. See you guys tomorrow.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget F
I agree. Alternatively, I looked at the Social Web article.. One of their last sections was devoted to applying how the Social Web affects us in our real life. I'm not quite sure if we can do something similar. However, if we did want to try I would say we could talk about how globalization has made life so easy, and then possibly talk about the negative aspects that are brought along with so much connectivity to the rest of the world. Not sure, what do you guys think? Sandere0 ( talk) 21:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Some points on sentences that need to be reworked:
-European Hegemony has briefly been described. Should I add more? Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)bridget
-This has been omitted.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Colonizers has been changed to a more appropriate term-merchants
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-This was added by a previous editor. I have changed periodization to early globalization.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Who found this point? Please add the reference.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Whoever added this reference please go back and format it correctly.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Whoever added this line please reference where you found it.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Keep up the good job, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Bridget.. Sry I had trouble ref. those parts and I thought I added that right but loooked back and noticed you were right. Also I went back to try and fix some of the errors bit couldnt find that section anymore.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I rearranged the sections and created headings for what I think are some of the main points linked to our topic. Please feel free to add more to sections that look like they need more and if you find that another heading is a better suit for the topic. I am basically done with the emergence of archaic globalization and the different factors that drove it. I will still be adding more but the next phases need to be developed. Hope everybody is making out okay, can't wait to see the changes made later on tonight!
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Also, if somebody thinks of a more specific topic on early globalization to research let me know and I can help add to it. I have a few books from the lib that are pretty useful.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Who is in charge of modern globalization? I started a section and added some information I found in my research. Let me know if you are having difficulty finding information I have a book that covers that topic.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Hey Bridget, Yeah I was planning on going on to do Modern globalization as well. I just hadn't gotten to it yet. But about what you already wrote down this afternoon under that section, I was wondering if you could clarify one sentence: "This began to emerge during the 1500s, continuing to expand exponentially over time as industrialization developed in the eighteenth century." In this sentence, which phase of globalization are you referring to? Because the modern period didn't start till the 19th or 20th century Sandere0 ( talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I saw that you added information that was already added to the article into the proto-globalization section. The one small paragraph I was able to work into my first paragraph, but the second paragraph you pasted in there doesn't actually fall under proto: "Bayly also stresses the 'multi-polar' nature of archaic globalization, which involved the active participation of non-Europeans. Because it predated the Great Divergence of the nineteenth century, in which Western Europe pulled ahead of the rest of the world in terms of industrial production and economic output, archaic globalization was a phenomenon that was driven not only by Europe but also by other economically developed Old World centers such as Gujurat, Bengal, coastal China and Japan." I indented the paragraph so whomever wrote it can work it into where it fits best, (or whoever gets to it first) Sandere0 ( talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey sorry that section was there from before and I accidentally placed it in that section. I am not really sure where it fits in best but it is an informative section so lets see where it can go...any ideas?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
I think this section should probably be moved up to the beginning archaic globalization, if we intend to keep it. I think most of it is unnecessary except for maybe the "great divergence" part because one of the major points of the article is about how Europe was not the only powerful region Ebw7 ( talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Is the reference of this section "Before European Hegemony"? It needs a citation but I did not want to put the wrong source Ebw7 ( talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so our posts are being posted hours ahead of the actual times we're putting them up. This isn't so good, He's going to assume we're posting things late and won't give us credit! Sandere0 ( talk) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm nominating us now because I'm worried we're all going to think someone will do it and then it won't get done! We still have over an hour before midnight, and they say there's a waiting list of these nominations so they won't get to ours immediately! Sandere0 ( talk) 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Sarah I just saw that you did the nomination. Good job because I had no I dea how to. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Rachel I know this!! hahaha I must have been in a hurry when I wrote that and remembering how last time we got it wrong .. I'm soooo sorry ! ha
"pp" stands for pages (plural); for page (singular) you want "p" (again singular). -- Hoary ( talk) 02:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we know who coined this particular term, and where? Is the term widely used by historians; and if so, can three significant historians who use it be specified? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I take an example, pretty much at random:
Incidentally, if the book reference is correct as far as it goes (and I don't know), then the book would seem to be:
That's from WorldCat, which of course might be wrong -- but I believe that in 2004 Blackwell was already well on the way to becoming part of Wiley. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That was from near the bottom. How about one from near the top?
Well, all sorts of things are comparable with all sorts of things. (You can't compare archaic globalization to my fridge or my need for a haircut, but it's obvious that anything called "globalization" will be comparable with anything else called "globalization".) Did states really trade with each other, or do you mean merchants and merchant organizations within these states? I'm puzzled by the notion of "an idea such as politics" (let alone economy); do you perhaps mean religious and political ideas? (But surely, early well documented spread of religions predated your subject matter by several centuries.) By "actors", do you mean states, merchants, producers, consumers, or what?
Really, each part of this article should be examined really hard by two people within your team who didn't write it. When that's done, a couple of you should independently go through print-outs with a red pen, and then carefully edit the result. All the best! -- Hoary ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. I will be fine-tuning the sections today and clarifying some points that seem to have some confusion. I am not quite sure what needs to be clarified with "an idea such as politics" you are right with your assumption about political and religious ideas. You are also correct with your assumption about "actors" being states, merchants, consumers etc. I am implying all of these with the term actors. Also, what important topics do we seem to be missing that we can add? Hopefully my group-mates are working on adding more to the bare sections.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dana boomer ( talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm going to be reviewing this article for good article status. If I've read your talk page comments correctly, it looks like you're not quite ready for a review, so I'll hold off until you would like me to start. I have watchlisted both this page and the talk page of the article, so feel free to let me know in either spot that you are ready for the review to start. Just as a first comment, taking care of all of the tags and responding to the various comments that outside editors have left on the talk page are two things that you should concentrate on initially. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are some preliminary comments. I've gotten a bit busy, so my apologies if the review comes up in sections - feel free to work on the comments I've put up so far, and I'll just add on to the end.
These are my thoughts for now. I'll do a closer read-through of the prose tomorrow, although I'm concerned from a brief look today that many parts read like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. More later, Dana boomer ( talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Citation density needs increase. In the para/section "Defining globalization", the same ref is used for three sentences. Why those three? Why not all? Most other paras suffer from the same problem. Another issue (simple to solve) - the paragraphs are too long, break them down into something smaller. Regarding "Bayly claims", unless others disagree with him, there is probably no need to name him in the sentence, ref footnote will do just fine. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, check out how your colleagues from 2009 developed the Proto-globalization article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the preliminary review. Do you have any specific advice as to how to expand the beginning section but not add too much detail to it? Also, is there specific sections or sentences that seem to read as an essay so that I can look further into correcting this? Bfowler513 ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Thank you Dana! I have made repairs to the paragraphs in regards to essay-like penmanship. Please make direct references to areas which I have missed, though! Sandere0 ( talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Rachel
I was kind of waiting for the rest of the comments above to be taken care of, but the majority of them seem to be done, so I'll add a few more (although some might be repeats):
More in a bit. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for more suggestions Dana, Im going to look back into it and see if I can fix the references. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dana most of the "page needed" tags have been taken care of Ebw7 ( talk) 18:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
More later... Dana boomer ( talk) 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)et
Dana, thanks again for your most recent comments. I will try my best to try and fix some of these sections though I amm not the best at this so be leanient with me. Also I did not know that we needed "pp" for multiple pages so I'll go and try to find them to fix too. thanks again.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There were quite a few spots that made me go "what?" - I really don't understand what they are saying:
This is the majority of the big issues I found with the article. There are some other minor points I'll post tomorrow morning, but the article should be at least B-class once these (and the remaining issues listed above) are taken care of. Thank you all for your continued work on this, even in spite of my continued delays :) Dana boomer ( talk) 02:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I just signed on and saw all of these slight errors that neeed to be fixed. I'll try and go through and reword some of these mistakes to make better sense. Other than that I dont know what else we can do. Go easy on us Dana Ha-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The article is looking much improved from where it was when I first saw it. However, there are still a lot of unclear places and wording that just doesn't make sense. I know that your teacher is planning to grade tonight, and I'm sorry that I didn't get the remainder of this review up until now. However, you guys have done well in responding to the majority of my comments, and the article has gone from a stub to a solid C-class/almost B-class article. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What is everybody working on? I see very little being added to the sections we have already. This needs to be done ASAP so whatever you are working on please add to the article as soon as you can or if you seem to be having trouble finding more information or resources please ask other group members for suggestions. Aside from Proto and Modern globalization that Rachel is working on what else is everybody up to? I will be fine tuning my sections in the beginning as well as the world system theory in terms of archaic globalization. If anybody has any suggestions to make any section better please do not hesitate to add to our talk page.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
I added some new sections. Feel free to expand upon them or make any necessary changes.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Another possible suggestion for the article would be to describe the main trade routes during this time. Specific ones can either be added to sections in place or maybe add a different section for it.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Ok I was having an issue coming up with more information. I will definitely look into specific trade routes Ebw7 ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Im trying to add some last minute things in one of the section to try to expand it. but there is little imformation left to go on and everything is pretty much in the article as it is now.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There is plenty more information to be added to each section. If you look at the required book for the class as well as look on Pittcat I am sure you can find more information to add. If you really can't find any information then edits should be made to the page.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 16:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Does anybody know how to add a picture if it is saved on your computer and not on the internet? Is it even possible? Or if anybody can find the Pax Mongolica Different regional systems picture.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 02:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
The sections expansion of long distance trade, proto globalization, modern globalization, the three principles of archaic globalization and major trade routes can all be expanded upon or edited. Since everybody seems to be having trouble coming up with more information this should allow you know where to look specifically and where to add information.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 16:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Sounds good Bridget, thanks .. I added some more to the trading routes section and Im going to going into proto globalization and expand that some more.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Archaic globalization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Archaic globalization was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here. |
The article currently states that the focus of archaic globalization is the 16th century, but History_of_globalization#History suggest it covers times up to the 16th century (I also find the latter assertion to be more correct, but it does appear that sources have varying definition of archaic globalization, as they differ on where it begun (and what came before it)). Source for 1400-1600 as the timeframe for archaic globalization; source for 16th century as the time frame for archaic glob., source that seems to use archaic globalization for the times of proto-globalization (up to 19th century), source for the archaic globalization being simply "before the 1600", another one for the same use, source using arch. glob. in the context of 100 AD, source using arch. glob. in the context of the Roman Empire. So I'd suggest defining archaic globalization as the time before 17th century (1600s), and noting that most scholars stress its time frame as from around 15th to 16th centuries, although some use it for even earlier periods (such as the times of the Roman Empire). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I will research how historically archaic globalization emerged. The different factors that fueled it as well as the factors that caused it to not continue into present day. I will explore different historical events that shaped the ideals of this topic. I have two resources but hope to find more once I am able to get to the library tomorrow. Resources: In defense of globalization By Jagdish N. Bhagwat
:Globalization and the Great Convergence: Rethinking World History in the Long Term Northrup, David, 1941
Bfowler513 ( talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)B. Fowler
I'm going to add details on the trade patterns and routes that appeared during the period of archaic globalization. The resources I'm going to utilize are "The Sociology of Globailzation" by Luke Martell and "Globalization in World History" by Anthony G. Hopkins Sandere0 ( talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get on here. I have decided that I will be comparing Archaic globalization with other types of globalization and give a couple examples as well for Archaic globalization.-- Corey F. Coreyj33 ( talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I think it would be a good idea to create a new section within the article labeled something like the phases of globalization. In this section we can define and give examples of such phases as archaic globalization (of course), proto-globalization, and modern globalization. In this section I believe it would also be beneficial to just list the time periods of each and maybe just a brief explanation. Sandere0 ( talk) 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good to me Sarah. I can actually put my examples that I was thinking about doing into that section. I also think once we have all of the information typed out, we can get together and put it all in order into different sections. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarah I think that sounds good too. I have a lot of research on the archaic period and pre 16th century. Does somebody want to take the proto-globalization period and modern? This could possibly be a good way to strucute the article? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bfowler513 (
talk •
contribs)
20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
If you look at my question about the history below--should we organize specific states according to these three different "transitions" of archaic globalization?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Haha, my name is Rachel, but it's cool. And Bridget, i'll take the proto and modern period. As you guys can see i wrote a little on the three basic principles of archaic globalization (I found that in the Bayly information), I dont know how to create a new section within the article, do you think someone could go in and fix that, or advise me on how its done? Sandere0 ( talk) 10:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is a good idea as well but I do think that information should be in a separate section than the archaic globalization history one and possibly towards the end of the article Ebw7 ( talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
OMG...Rachel I totally knew that but looked at your user name real quick and for some reason thought it was sarah hahahaha whoops. Along with my section on examples and explaining some of them. I was also going to compare differetnt types of globalization> so should i just compare the proto and modern to archaic too then or si someone going to add that into a new section??-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys,
I am finding that the required book for the course is pretty helpful for our topic. I am still having some trouble finding more sources but if I stumble upon something good I will let you know.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 00:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Hey.. where did you find that book at? I was looking for other sources too but there are literally none out there. Im going to have to limit my information to that "googlebooks" I guess. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I was just looking and actually found some good books on google for information. it may or may not help you out but here are the links http://books.google.com/books?id=MzgvKYQa4HEC&lpg=PA33&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false and http://books.google.com/books?id=8pi2kwCmzDoC&lpg=PA6&dq=Archaic%20Globalization&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=Archaic%20Globalization&f=false -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I seem to be having trouble citing my references on the edit page. I can't figure out how to cite it without it showing up in the article. If I select to add references it tells me I do not have it in the proper order. Anybody know how it should go?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)B.Fowler
Look how I cited stuff for this portion, it should help. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Economic_globalization&action=edit§ion=2 Tyod ( talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, looking at your references it seems like you could be well served by using the Rp template for citing multiple pages from the same source. I think it would help to condense your reference section and streamline the article overall. If you'd like, you can see how it works on the article our group is working on.-- Rsoruss ( talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A possible recommendation is to have a history section. Also, you could possible organize it in a manner to have show an evolution or archaic globalization to present day globalization and the the differentiations between the two. I think this would solidify the topic and give a nice transitory progression to what we see in modern society. In addition, a comparison might be effective as well. Tyod ( talk) 17:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
There are many different countries that are touched upon during early globalization. Is it more important for me to touch upon the broad spectrum of the topic or go into detail about certain actors?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
I think this section needs to be broken down because everything we are writing about is history and I think it might be getting confusing, Any suggestions on what the sections should be? Ebw7 ( talk) 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you're doing a nice job with the page. Some sections are a little awkward as the paragraphs only contain one sentence. Also it seems there may be some editing issues with the section "the distinction between food..ect." Obviously these problems can be easily ironed out. Seems like a comprehensive summary of the history of archaic globalization so far. Good work! -- Kas205 ( talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you guys could divide it up a little better. I was thinking have the history then maybe have a section about what goods were traded, means of trade, etc... It just seems to get a little cluttered and hard to read, but I'm an idiot and it's just a suggestion! Rsg20 ( talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I made a post on the Globalization page mentioning our article and that we are welcoming all and any help! Sandere0 ( talk) 12:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! I got some very helpful books from the library yesterday. Google books was very helpful to me. Articles on out topic seem to be slim to I guess look more towards the books.
67.95.168.226 ( talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Hey Guys,
If you look at the economic development page it can be useful when thinking about different phases of archaic development. I think by tomorrow night if we all have most of our groundwork that will be useful and we can start arranging the page in a better manner. See you guys tomorrow.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget F
I agree. Alternatively, I looked at the Social Web article.. One of their last sections was devoted to applying how the Social Web affects us in our real life. I'm not quite sure if we can do something similar. However, if we did want to try I would say we could talk about how globalization has made life so easy, and then possibly talk about the negative aspects that are brought along with so much connectivity to the rest of the world. Not sure, what do you guys think? Sandere0 ( talk) 21:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Some points on sentences that need to be reworked:
-European Hegemony has briefly been described. Should I add more? Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)bridget
-This has been omitted.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Colonizers has been changed to a more appropriate term-merchants
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-This was added by a previous editor. I have changed periodization to early globalization.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Who found this point? Please add the reference.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Whoever added this reference please go back and format it correctly.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
-Whoever added this line please reference where you found it.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Keep up the good job, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Bridget.. Sry I had trouble ref. those parts and I thought I added that right but loooked back and noticed you were right. Also I went back to try and fix some of the errors bit couldnt find that section anymore.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys I rearranged the sections and created headings for what I think are some of the main points linked to our topic. Please feel free to add more to sections that look like they need more and if you find that another heading is a better suit for the topic. I am basically done with the emergence of archaic globalization and the different factors that drove it. I will still be adding more but the next phases need to be developed. Hope everybody is making out okay, can't wait to see the changes made later on tonight!
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Also, if somebody thinks of a more specific topic on early globalization to research let me know and I can help add to it. I have a few books from the lib that are pretty useful.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Who is in charge of modern globalization? I started a section and added some information I found in my research. Let me know if you are having difficulty finding information I have a book that covers that topic.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Hey Bridget, Yeah I was planning on going on to do Modern globalization as well. I just hadn't gotten to it yet. But about what you already wrote down this afternoon under that section, I was wondering if you could clarify one sentence: "This began to emerge during the 1500s, continuing to expand exponentially over time as industrialization developed in the eighteenth century." In this sentence, which phase of globalization are you referring to? Because the modern period didn't start till the 19th or 20th century Sandere0 ( talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I saw that you added information that was already added to the article into the proto-globalization section. The one small paragraph I was able to work into my first paragraph, but the second paragraph you pasted in there doesn't actually fall under proto: "Bayly also stresses the 'multi-polar' nature of archaic globalization, which involved the active participation of non-Europeans. Because it predated the Great Divergence of the nineteenth century, in which Western Europe pulled ahead of the rest of the world in terms of industrial production and economic output, archaic globalization was a phenomenon that was driven not only by Europe but also by other economically developed Old World centers such as Gujurat, Bengal, coastal China and Japan." I indented the paragraph so whomever wrote it can work it into where it fits best, (or whoever gets to it first) Sandere0 ( talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey sorry that section was there from before and I accidentally placed it in that section. I am not really sure where it fits in best but it is an informative section so lets see where it can go...any ideas?
Bfowler513 ( talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
I think this section should probably be moved up to the beginning archaic globalization, if we intend to keep it. I think most of it is unnecessary except for maybe the "great divergence" part because one of the major points of the article is about how Europe was not the only powerful region Ebw7 ( talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Is the reference of this section "Before European Hegemony"? It needs a citation but I did not want to put the wrong source Ebw7 ( talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so our posts are being posted hours ahead of the actual times we're putting them up. This isn't so good, He's going to assume we're posting things late and won't give us credit! Sandere0 ( talk) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm nominating us now because I'm worried we're all going to think someone will do it and then it won't get done! We still have over an hour before midnight, and they say there's a waiting list of these nominations so they won't get to ours immediately! Sandere0 ( talk) 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Sarah I just saw that you did the nomination. Good job because I had no I dea how to. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Rachel I know this!! hahaha I must have been in a hurry when I wrote that and remembering how last time we got it wrong .. I'm soooo sorry ! ha
"pp" stands for pages (plural); for page (singular) you want "p" (again singular). -- Hoary ( talk) 02:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we know who coined this particular term, and where? Is the term widely used by historians; and if so, can three significant historians who use it be specified? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I take an example, pretty much at random:
Incidentally, if the book reference is correct as far as it goes (and I don't know), then the book would seem to be:
That's from WorldCat, which of course might be wrong -- but I believe that in 2004 Blackwell was already well on the way to becoming part of Wiley. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That was from near the bottom. How about one from near the top?
Well, all sorts of things are comparable with all sorts of things. (You can't compare archaic globalization to my fridge or my need for a haircut, but it's obvious that anything called "globalization" will be comparable with anything else called "globalization".) Did states really trade with each other, or do you mean merchants and merchant organizations within these states? I'm puzzled by the notion of "an idea such as politics" (let alone economy); do you perhaps mean religious and political ideas? (But surely, early well documented spread of religions predated your subject matter by several centuries.) By "actors", do you mean states, merchants, producers, consumers, or what?
Really, each part of this article should be examined really hard by two people within your team who didn't write it. When that's done, a couple of you should independently go through print-outs with a red pen, and then carefully edit the result. All the best! -- Hoary ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. I will be fine-tuning the sections today and clarifying some points that seem to have some confusion. I am not quite sure what needs to be clarified with "an idea such as politics" you are right with your assumption about political and religious ideas. You are also correct with your assumption about "actors" being states, merchants, consumers etc. I am implying all of these with the term actors. Also, what important topics do we seem to be missing that we can add? Hopefully my group-mates are working on adding more to the bare sections.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dana boomer ( talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm going to be reviewing this article for good article status. If I've read your talk page comments correctly, it looks like you're not quite ready for a review, so I'll hold off until you would like me to start. I have watchlisted both this page and the talk page of the article, so feel free to let me know in either spot that you are ready for the review to start. Just as a first comment, taking care of all of the tags and responding to the various comments that outside editors have left on the talk page are two things that you should concentrate on initially. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are some preliminary comments. I've gotten a bit busy, so my apologies if the review comes up in sections - feel free to work on the comments I've put up so far, and I'll just add on to the end.
These are my thoughts for now. I'll do a closer read-through of the prose tomorrow, although I'm concerned from a brief look today that many parts read like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. More later, Dana boomer ( talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Citation density needs increase. In the para/section "Defining globalization", the same ref is used for three sentences. Why those three? Why not all? Most other paras suffer from the same problem. Another issue (simple to solve) - the paragraphs are too long, break them down into something smaller. Regarding "Bayly claims", unless others disagree with him, there is probably no need to name him in the sentence, ref footnote will do just fine. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, check out how your colleagues from 2009 developed the Proto-globalization article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the preliminary review. Do you have any specific advice as to how to expand the beginning section but not add too much detail to it? Also, is there specific sections or sentences that seem to read as an essay so that I can look further into correcting this? Bfowler513 ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Thank you Dana! I have made repairs to the paragraphs in regards to essay-like penmanship. Please make direct references to areas which I have missed, though! Sandere0 ( talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Rachel
I was kind of waiting for the rest of the comments above to be taken care of, but the majority of them seem to be done, so I'll add a few more (although some might be repeats):
More in a bit. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for more suggestions Dana, Im going to look back into it and see if I can fix the references. -- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dana most of the "page needed" tags have been taken care of Ebw7 ( talk) 18:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
More later... Dana boomer ( talk) 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)et
Dana, thanks again for your most recent comments. I will try my best to try and fix some of these sections though I amm not the best at this so be leanient with me. Also I did not know that we needed "pp" for multiple pages so I'll go and try to find them to fix too. thanks again.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There were quite a few spots that made me go "what?" - I really don't understand what they are saying:
This is the majority of the big issues I found with the article. There are some other minor points I'll post tomorrow morning, but the article should be at least B-class once these (and the remaining issues listed above) are taken care of. Thank you all for your continued work on this, even in spite of my continued delays :) Dana boomer ( talk) 02:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I just signed on and saw all of these slight errors that neeed to be fixed. I'll try and go through and reword some of these mistakes to make better sense. Other than that I dont know what else we can do. Go easy on us Dana Ha-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The article is looking much improved from where it was when I first saw it. However, there are still a lot of unclear places and wording that just doesn't make sense. I know that your teacher is planning to grade tonight, and I'm sorry that I didn't get the remainder of this review up until now. However, you guys have done well in responding to the majority of my comments, and the article has gone from a stub to a solid C-class/almost B-class article. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What is everybody working on? I see very little being added to the sections we have already. This needs to be done ASAP so whatever you are working on please add to the article as soon as you can or if you seem to be having trouble finding more information or resources please ask other group members for suggestions. Aside from Proto and Modern globalization that Rachel is working on what else is everybody up to? I will be fine tuning my sections in the beginning as well as the world system theory in terms of archaic globalization. If anybody has any suggestions to make any section better please do not hesitate to add to our talk page.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
I added some new sections. Feel free to expand upon them or make any necessary changes.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Another possible suggestion for the article would be to describe the main trade routes during this time. Specific ones can either be added to sections in place or maybe add a different section for it.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Ok I was having an issue coming up with more information. I will definitely look into specific trade routes Ebw7 ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Im trying to add some last minute things in one of the section to try to expand it. but there is little imformation left to go on and everything is pretty much in the article as it is now.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There is plenty more information to be added to each section. If you look at the required book for the class as well as look on Pittcat I am sure you can find more information to add. If you really can't find any information then edits should be made to the page.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 16:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Does anybody know how to add a picture if it is saved on your computer and not on the internet? Is it even possible? Or if anybody can find the Pax Mongolica Different regional systems picture.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 02:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
The sections expansion of long distance trade, proto globalization, modern globalization, the three principles of archaic globalization and major trade routes can all be expanded upon or edited. Since everybody seems to be having trouble coming up with more information this should allow you know where to look specifically and where to add information.
Bfowler513 ( talk) 16:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget
Sounds good Bridget, thanks .. I added some more to the trading routes section and Im going to going into proto globalization and expand that some more.-- Coreyj33 ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)