Talk:Dorus Rijkers

Comments on GAnominee

The article currently has no sources. If anyone can add the references properly, please do. Otherwise I'm afraid it would probably fail straight away. PeaceNT 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It has sources, watch 'em at the article.

-)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 19:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, from what I can see, there's no references or footnotes section, please see WP:REF and WP:FN PeaceNT 19:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the links above, that's not how to cite the sources. PeaceNT 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't intend to make you upset but from my objective review, your article just fits Start-class. I'm really sorry if my words somewhat disappoint you. I'm also having a GA nominee but it still fails a lot of basic criteria for a good article. Your article:

• Not fully cite sufficient sources.
• Weasel words: "..Although he never complained about it, you could see he could not live properly from it."; "he did not hav to prove himself for becoming captain. He got the distinguished rank immediately, and his own boat with afine crew with it!" etc.
• Lead section is too short.
• Trvia section should be merge to other parts.
• And above all, the whole article reads like hoax.

I suggest you withdraw the nomination, trying to improve the article and take time reading the criteria for GA standard. Best wishes. AW 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw, -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

See What is a good article? for further explanation of these descriptors.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• 2a/b - Correct the references by adding inline citations using WP:CITE guidelines.
• 2c - I can't tell if this article contains original research as the citations are inadequate.
• 4a - There are some words in this that break NPOV policy - for example 'legendary savior' - a phrase that could use some minor copyediting, along with much of the article. Perhaps copy the article into a word processor with spellcheck as well.
• 6a/c - No tag for state funeral image.

--ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe you would want to mention that in Dutch grandpa is "Opa" as that is what he would actually have beed called. TecTec 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebod added it. In Den Helder, it was very likely that people called him Opa, or Opa Dorus, and not Grandpa. -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Last member

I assume the last crew member is the one on the right. Am I correct?--TecTec 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats right. The man with the grey hair. The man with the dark moustache is the owner, the bold one. -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 10:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some questions

Was Dorus actually named "Theodorus" as the street named after him in Den Helder suggests? And I was also wondering how he made money to live. Did the KNRM give small salaries to its captains or did he also have a regular occupation or did he just have enough money sitting around to live off of? TecTec 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He had a small salary, certainly not much. But he could live from it. And yes, his full name was Theodorus. You can improve it yourself, if you'd like. Thanks for the suggestions, TectTec. -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 05:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If he received a small salary he's not really a volunteer then is he?TecTec 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was one. But he worked so often, and so much, that he didn't had any time for payed work anymore. In order to keep their best live-saver of all time, the KNMRgave him (and some of his finest cre-members) a bit of a salary. But he really was a volunteer. Because he voluntary gave up all his changes for making much money and career, in order to save the lives of endangared sailors (he was a quite succesfull captain with his own ship before joing the lifeboats. Does that answer your question, TecTec? Greetings, -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. But it raises some more and unfortunatly I cannot read more than a few words of Dutch so I cannot find answers to them myself. My new questions are: What exactly did he do before he became a lifeboat captain. From the article it seems like he was 34 when he joined the KNRM. You say he was a succesful captain with his own boat. Does that mean he was a coastal trader? I'm sure you must be able to find some more information about his early life. TecTec 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can. I'll upload it soon, and than tell you more. -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wybe's comments: suggestions for improving

This article is full of mistakes. Two pictures are taken by me. I have never been asked to give them free for publication. The third picture (funeral) is not said to be free of rights. I had no contact with anybody about this article before today. Wybe van der Wal (WEBed. of www.dorusrijkers.nl) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.42.118 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

So fix it. --Geniac 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not reasonable to expect a new user to know how to edit articles. A challenge to copyright should be responded to more proactively. I have removed all the images from the article per Wybe van der Wal's request. Perhaps someone can discuss with him the licensing requirements for Wikipedia and whether he is willing to license them according to those requirements. (From what he wrote, I suspect that he would not.)

I don't know how to delete the images so perhaps someone else who is more knowledgeable in this area can get the ball rolling.

--Richard 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not able to determine the source of the images of the painting or the state funeral. Since Rijkers died in 1928, the photo of the state funeral is probably not in the public domain (copyright is likely intact for works copyrighted after 1923).

This is probably what Wybe is asserting.

The question is whether that photo is copyrighted by a newspaper or by an individual. If by an individual, then the copyright might not have been renewed. NOTE: I was unable to find either the image of the painting or the image of the state funeral at the website that Wybe claims to be affiliated with.

The picture of the last surviving crewmember can be found at www.dorusrijkers.nl. I can't read Dutch so I am unable to ascertain if the images provided on that website are free of copyright or not. Assuming good faith, I would tend to credit Wybe van der Wal's assertion that the images are not free. --Richard 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wybe, are there any other mistakes in the article other than the use of images that are not free? --Richard 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not verify all content of the article, only what I know by heart. 'lifeboat captain' isn't the correct term 'lifeboat coxswain' ? '487 shipwrecked victims over a total of 38 recue operations' It is not exactly nown how many people were rescued on how many operations by Dorus Rijkers. At his retirement he received a decorated list (http://www.dorusrijkers.nl/opa/fotos/index.php sixth-photo) but Dorus claimed he had made more services and rescued more people.

In the right-hand small overview is written: 'saved the lives of over 500 people'!

About this overview: He served shortly as a voluntary lifeboat-rower. In his function as coxswain he had a salary. Normally this wasn't a full job, they had another job as main income.

The name of his wife: Neeltje Huisman (widow of Jan Kuiper)

Here is written he had 9 children. Dorus and Neeltje had only 1 child together, a daughter.

Neeltje had 6 children before from Jan Kuiper. The mention of nine children is also false.

Stated is 'he was also known as Den Heldersche Menschenredder'. This is the subtitel of a booklet about him, but not a special 'title'. Another title of a book is 'Koning der Blauwe Zeeridders' (ing of the Blue Sea-Knights). I do not know of this was a contempory given 'title' to him.

Under 1-Time as a lifeboat captain.

The KNRM only exists from 1991 on. Dorus served the NZHRM (Noord- en zuid-Hollandsche Redding Maatschappij), one of the two main Netherlands lifeboat-societies at that time.

In 1949 the NZHRM became KNZHRM when se became 'Koninklijke ...' (Royal ......).

I have no idea what is the meaning of the sentence ' His rank ......and crew'. He was the coxswain of the lifeboat of Nieuwediep (the harbour of Helder, later named as Den Helder.

The paragraph 'Dorus joined .......small stipend.' is new to me. I never heard of it. Correct is that Dorus and all of his crew members received a sum for each trial and each service. Like all the other people of the NZHRM.

Also the next paragraph 'During ......symbolic in nature' is new to me.

Dorus gained his legendary status especially because of the activities (on a national scale) of the Helden der Zee

Fonds 'Dorus Rijkers' (see hereunder) that was founded from about 1922/1923. When dorus was already retired.

2- Retirement and death:

'Although he never complained'. It is well known Dorus complained about this.

'This incident .....during the 1920s': It is not sure Dorus sold his gold medal. It is not this incident that formed the reason to create the fund.

This fund (Helden der Zee Fonds 'Dorus Rijkers' - Fund for the Heros of the Sea 'DR') was created after Dorus told a journal editor (Dr.L.A. Rademaker of the Hague-journal 'Het Vaderland') on a meeting in Den Helder in october 1922 about his situation. The story of the sold medal and the bicycle forms part of Dorus his complaints, but there are doubts about this story.

'DR died peacefully in bed': Is it peacefully to have awfully pain ?

DR did not get a state-funeral. In fact his funeral looked like that with music, a big tour, a lot of people and a lot of Marine Officers, also high ranking (also representing the Minister of Marine a.i.)

3-Legacy: It is not correct that the remaining money of the fund was used for a huge statue of DR, watching over the sea (sic!)

The huge statue is a statue for all the Netherlands sea-rescuers (see: http://media.dorusrijkers.nl/album49), opened in 1935.

This statue is made with the money a committee raised together. A separate, small statue for the person DR is ericted in 1939 (see: http://media.dorusrijkers.nl/album50). The phrase 'the old DR, watching over the sea' is a complete nonsens and imagination of somebody. I am afraid more phrases in this article are of the same level.

The phase: 'The amateur collector ......returned to him' is completely new to me.

'The boat Dorus used for most of his rescues has been preserved' is not correct. I should not know where this boat is today. Our WEBsite www.dorusrijkers.nl has a section about the present situation of former lifeboats. This boat is not present here. 'and many Dutch rescue boats of the KNRM still carry his name with pride' is not correct. Only one boat of the (K)NZHRM has been named after DR (active from 1923-1965) and one boat of the KNRM carries the name Dorus Rijkers (1997-today).

General: Is it interesting to know what towns have a street named DR for an english-language article on DR? (it is copied from our WEBpage http://www.dorusrijkers.nl/opa/vernoemingen/, but that is for the people in the Netherlands.)

About the photo's: One photo was of a painting that is generally known as 'Dorus Rijkers', but this painting has nothing to do with him. (see:http://www.dorusrijkers.nl/opa/fotos/ - 8th photo).

The photo of the funeral cortege: I do not know who has the rights of this picture or who was the photograher. I know that Wikipedia is very strict on publication of photo's. Only photo's of which it is sure there are nog longer rights-holders may be published. Netherlands law gives the rights 70 years after the death of the photographer to the family. So there is a big chance this photo is still copyrighted.

The photo of a former crew-member (mr. Jan Bijl, machinedriver) and former owner of the boat is made by me in 1999. I was never contacted before about publishing this photo in this article. I would not object publication, but hen with the correct mention of the photographer etc.

Here is the image as it is held in our database. Please review Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses to understand Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of images. After you have done so, please choose a "free license" that you are comfortable with granting. I am not an expert in image licensing. If you need help, I can try to find someone who is more knowledgeable than I am.

--Richard 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In principe I have no problem if my photo's are used with a correct mention of photographer, description, etc.

I personally don't find it very usefull for this english-article about DR to publish a photo of mr. Jan Bijl (ex-crew member) and mr. Hans Jongejan (one of the former owners of the ex-lifeboat). Also neither of them (to my knowledge) has given permission to publish this photo of them in this article. ::The netherlands law has a 'portretrecht' for cases like this (the right to publish a photo of someone, if he/she is not a 'public figure').

So I hesitate to give my permission in this case. [Wybe van der Wal, 01.05.2007]

I agree that the photo of Jan Bijl does not add much to the article. Given the "portrait right" issue, we can dispense with it. --Richard 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

General: A few times in this article the term 'Dutch' is used where 'Netherlands' is meant. Dutch is meaning 'from Holland', and Holland is only a part of The Netherlands. You should not call all british people 'english', nor all germans 'bavarians'. So stop using Holland and The Netherlands as synoniems, even if you learned this (wrongly) on school (and even if companies in the Netherlands do so).

With the hope of heading off an unnecessary discussion later, perhaps it should be noted that the above comment about the use of the word "Dutch" in English usage is misleading. These points are already dealt with in the appropriate articles, and particularly Netherlands (terminology): en:Wiki is quite clear about the distinction between the Netherlands (the country) and Holland (a region within that country), and to that extent what is said above is of course correct. However, in English, "Dutch" is the usual, and correct, adjective from the "Netherlands" - such words as "Netherlandish" et var. are not in general use in English. "Dutch" is not used to refer specifically to "Holland", unless the name "Holland" is being misused as a synonym for the Netherlands. HeartofaDog 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

enough for the moment I presume [Wybe van der Wal, WEBed. of www.dorusrijkers.nl]

Ouch!! Enough for quite a few moments, indeed. This will take some time to absorb but, once we have integrated all of your information, the article will be much improved. Please be patient with us. Also, please consider creating a username. --Richard 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Richard for your work. There are stil some small slipperies, but I understand you will give it a second treatment.

FYI: My information is a.o. based on:

- the chapter: 'Dorus Rijkers (1847-1928); Koning der Blauwe zeeridders' in the book 'Roeiredders aan het Marsdiep 1824-1923' from Jan T. Bremer; published by the Nationaal Reddingmuseum Dorus Rijkers and the Helderse Historische Vereniging, both from Den Helder; published november 1998, isbn 90 6455 294 0. This book forms nr. 9/10 of the serie: Helderse Historische Reeks. this chapter is on the pages 111-140. (Jan T. Bremer is a well-informed, serious author on especially historical/geographical matters about the Noordkop (The region around Den Helder in The Netherlands).

- 'Dorus Rijkers; De Heldersche Menschenredder'; booklet written by mr. Tjeerd Adema; published by Egner in Helder (not: Den Helder) in 1928.

Other sources about the person DR that are to be used by me: http://www.dorusrijkers.nl/opa/bronnen/index.php [Wybe van der Wal, 01.05.2007]

Why are you calling this article a bad one, If I'm permitted to ask? Because, the historicalally in-accuracy isn't really a terrible thing; enough links are given to make it easy to improve it further. And about the images; they're given for nothing but informatical-uses, and that ain't a bad thing. At least one image needs to be put here, a photograph of Dorus Rijkers himself the people wo read the article must have an impression of the man himself! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let's not take offense at what was very valid criticism. The words "good" and "bad" are relative terms. The original article was poor in quality but a good start and has steadily improved. Hopefully, Wybe's comments have raised it to an even higher level. --Richard 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wybe, I think I have addressed all your points above. Please re-scan the article and provide any additional comments that you might have for improving it.

Also, if you create an account, you can create a "watchlist" that will allow you to "watch" the article and this Talk Page to see what changes have been made. That way you can easily determine if new edits have been made to the article or to this Talk Page.

--Richard 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, Wybe, that'll be best! That way, you can keep an hold on unnceccary expandings\deletings on this article, and keep up the quality and good work! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not really. There are many grammatical mistakes in the article, and the manual of style is not followed well; for example, there is no need to make the society's name bold.

2. Factually accurate?: No. There is a serious lack of thrid party references and reliable sources. Additionally, the sources aren't formatted properly.

3. Broad in coverage?: Possible.

4. Neutral point of view?: No. Many of the text is written in a biased tone.

5. Article stability? Yes.

6. Images?: Good.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. —Anas ^talk? 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

—Anas ^talk? 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

List

I've just added a 1911-list showing all Dorus' rescues. Might be usefull? It is also added to the Renown (German barque)-article. -The Bold Guy- 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dorus Rijkers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I hope to give you my initial comments shortly, with more detailed observations in 24 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Later) I have read through the article. I am sorry to say that in my view it does not at present approach Good Article standard. The article, at only 700 words long, is seriously short of the detail that is expected in a Good Article biography. Information should be given about his place of birth, who is parents were, any other available family background information. In the article we first meet him in 1872 when he is already a captain. We have no information about his early seafaring career, like when he first went to sea and the sorts of ships he sailed in. Later, we are told that he saved "hundreds of lives", without a single description of a specific incident. It may be that you need to extend considerably your range of sources.

The article is also almost completely lacking in in-line citations - 5 in all, three in the legacy section, one in the infobox. There is an open "citation needed" tag dating from May 2007! I tried this [1] but was unable to locate the Rijkers biography.

There are also numerous MoS issues, some of a fairly minor nature (e.g. use of boldface within the text), others, such as an inadequate lead section, more significant. All in all, given that the article has failed GA before, I recommend that you do not bring it quickly back to GA. I think you need to look more closely at the GA criteria, also at the nature of other Good Article biographies, and after you have extended it, submit the article for a peer review so as to collect a broad range of comments.

On the plus side, I think that the prose standard has improved since the last GA, and with a few tweaks would be generally acceptable. It is the lack of broad coverage, and the lack of citations, that are the main problems to be resolved. For the present, I have no choice but to fail the article. Sorry, Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dorus Rijkers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dorus Rijkers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504074247/http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/Cambridge/entries/031/Dorus-Theodorus-Rijkers.html to http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/Cambridge/entries/031/Dorus-Theodorus-Rijkers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826132035/http://www.noord-holland-tourist.nl/pictures/toerist_beheer/brochure/reddingmuseum/welcome_uk.html to http://www.noord-holland-tourist.nl/pictures/toerist_beheer/brochure/reddingmuseum/welcome_uk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505063328/http://www.holland.com/global/index.html?page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.holland.com%2Fglobal%2Fdiscover%2Fcoast%2Fhighlights%2Fdorusrijk.html to http://www.holland.com/global/index.html?page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.holland.com%2Fglobal%2Fdiscover%2Fcoast%2Fhighlights%2Fdorusrijk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)