This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Ereunetes and DavidDijkgraaf: — Part of the last lede statement is a bit redundant, as we have a 'not to be confused' link for Cornelis Evertsen the Younger above the lede, but also a statement to this effect in the lede. It would seem the most practical way to address this is by adding Cornelis Evertsen the Elder to the 'Not to be confused link'. Also it doesn't seem appropriate to make a statement about their military service in the lede, so making it in the Biography section, per family background, would seem better placed, which is how the article reads now. If anyone disagrees go ahead and revert. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Ereunetes, actually Shomette & Haslach, 1988, p. 150, says about the vessel in question that, "It was little more than a small ketch, or yawl ...". 'Little more than', not actually a ketch. Brodhead, 1871, v. 2, p. 205, which is the source I was going by when I indicated Sloop, says that the vessel was a sloop. A ketch and sloop are very similar-- small vessels. In any case, no big deal, we can leave it at ketch.. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 01:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The change of the title of the subsection "Admiral in the service of the Zeeland Admiralty" to "Admiral of the Zeeland Admiralty" may seem innocuous, but betrays a basic misunderstanding of the relations in the Dutch navy. The "Admiral of the Zeeland Admiralty" was an office belonging to the stadtholder of Zeeland (i.e. in this case Wiliam III). The same goes for the other four admiralties. They all had an "admiral-general" and that was the relevant stadtholder (William III in most provinces, and the Frisian stadtholder in the case of the Frisian Admiralty). This also explains that and why no one else could ever rise to the rank of "admiral". The highest one could climb was to "lieutenant-admiral". So the new subtitle is misleading. However, "Admiral in the service of" can be understood as covering the range of flag ranks from commandeur to luitenant-admiraal. That is why I changed it back. Ereunetes ( talk) 22:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, of course we can use excerpts, (btw, statements of fact can not be copyrighted), and original research only occurs when someone draws different conclusions apart from what a given source has indicated, regardless of phraseology. As for Geleyn, though a somewhat interesting character, I don't see him as making any sort of impact on history that's par with Cornelis the Youngest, or his father, from what I've read thus far anyways, so I'm not inclined to crank out an article for him. -- Thought the task would be less tedious if created by someone who could read Dutch and didn't have to translate entire books or pages of text, as it seems almost all the sources for Geleyn are written in Dutch. The Netherland Wikipdia article for Geleyn doesn't cite any sources. As for the Cornelis the Youngest article, I'll work on getting the last few items in question cited. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
If anything, Geleyn would certainly bring additional historical context to accounts about his brother and father, at least, so on that note, I may undertake the effort of which we speak. If you decide to launch that ship beforehand I'll more than likely be around to help. As you may know, I'm currently doing further research and editing with the Fort Amsterdam article, while sometimes tying in related articles, and continue to 'unearth' material that compels me to look further into matters. It's work -- but what fun. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Ereunetes and DavidDijkgraaf: — Part of the last lede statement is a bit redundant, as we have a 'not to be confused' link for Cornelis Evertsen the Younger above the lede, but also a statement to this effect in the lede. It would seem the most practical way to address this is by adding Cornelis Evertsen the Elder to the 'Not to be confused link'. Also it doesn't seem appropriate to make a statement about their military service in the lede, so making it in the Biography section, per family background, would seem better placed, which is how the article reads now. If anyone disagrees go ahead and revert. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Ereunetes, actually Shomette & Haslach, 1988, p. 150, says about the vessel in question that, "It was little more than a small ketch, or yawl ...". 'Little more than', not actually a ketch. Brodhead, 1871, v. 2, p. 205, which is the source I was going by when I indicated Sloop, says that the vessel was a sloop. A ketch and sloop are very similar-- small vessels. In any case, no big deal, we can leave it at ketch.. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 01:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The change of the title of the subsection "Admiral in the service of the Zeeland Admiralty" to "Admiral of the Zeeland Admiralty" may seem innocuous, but betrays a basic misunderstanding of the relations in the Dutch navy. The "Admiral of the Zeeland Admiralty" was an office belonging to the stadtholder of Zeeland (i.e. in this case Wiliam III). The same goes for the other four admiralties. They all had an "admiral-general" and that was the relevant stadtholder (William III in most provinces, and the Frisian stadtholder in the case of the Frisian Admiralty). This also explains that and why no one else could ever rise to the rank of "admiral". The highest one could climb was to "lieutenant-admiral". So the new subtitle is misleading. However, "Admiral in the service of" can be understood as covering the range of flag ranks from commandeur to luitenant-admiraal. That is why I changed it back. Ereunetes ( talk) 22:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, of course we can use excerpts, (btw, statements of fact can not be copyrighted), and original research only occurs when someone draws different conclusions apart from what a given source has indicated, regardless of phraseology. As for Geleyn, though a somewhat interesting character, I don't see him as making any sort of impact on history that's par with Cornelis the Youngest, or his father, from what I've read thus far anyways, so I'm not inclined to crank out an article for him. -- Thought the task would be less tedious if created by someone who could read Dutch and didn't have to translate entire books or pages of text, as it seems almost all the sources for Geleyn are written in Dutch. The Netherland Wikipdia article for Geleyn doesn't cite any sources. As for the Cornelis the Youngest article, I'll work on getting the last few items in question cited. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
If anything, Geleyn would certainly bring additional historical context to accounts about his brother and father, at least, so on that note, I may undertake the effort of which we speak. If you decide to launch that ship beforehand I'll more than likely be around to help. As you may know, I'm currently doing further research and editing with the Fort Amsterdam article, while sometimes tying in related articles, and continue to 'unearth' material that compels me to look further into matters. It's work -- but what fun. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)