Talk:Portolá expedition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Portolà expedition)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spain (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Bibliography[edit]

Treutlein, Theodore E. The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770. California Historical Society Quarterly, 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.morris (talkcontribs) 04:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Carrico, Richard L. Portolá's 1769 Expedition and Coastal Native Villages of San Diego County. The Journal of California Anthropology, 1977. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.morris (talkcontribs) 04:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Eldredge, Zoeth S. The March of Portolá and the Discovery of the Bay of San Francisco. The California Promotion Committee, 1909. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.morris (talkcontribs) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


These look good, but also check out more recent editions of expedition diaries which may have editors' introductions discussing the expedition.Docjay57 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review by Joseph Jordan: Portolá Expedition by Conor Morris

Rating: 4/5 Stars

Review: On the whole, I believe your article on the Portolá Expedition is very well done, with a clear, concise overview of the chronology and description of events, easily understood and explained. Specific sections I found that were done well wherein the writing was most fluid and detailed include the “History/Background” section, the “Decision to send Expedition” section, and the “Legacy” section. The “Expedition” section was done well and was very informative, though I thought that the wording could be altered a bit to make the sentences more fluid. For instance, the word “expedition” is used many times and perhaps a similar word could be used to add variety, though this is a stylistic choice. The “Gaspar de Portolá section seems a bit small, and it might lend itself to being eliminated, the details being included in another section such as in “Decision to send Expedition” or “History/Background”. You might include the history of Portolá as you did Junípero Serra, but in the “History/Background” section while putting the military personnel description at the beginning of the “Expedition” section. Smaller, less significant changes are simply that the “Expedition” heading needs to be shifted down, it seems, and the word “form” is misspelled in the “Interactions with Native Americans” section, the first sentence of which sounds a bit awkward at the ending with “not too much conflict arose”. I might also suggest rewriting the introduction which is from the stub, as a stylistic and personal preference, as it does state the facts, though the wording seems choppier and less sophisticated then the rest of the article. Overall, I believe the article is clear and written well and concisely, and is easily followed by the reader, with a good amount of detail given to the mist significant parts of the Expedition and its origins.

However, the only references I can see mentioned throughout the article are to Eldredge, who is only mentioned several times, as well as the original stub. Though it would seem you have used good sources judging from the bibliography, as well as no recognizable unaccredited internet sources, I do not know where or how you have used them in the article, except for the several instances of Eldredge. I would definitely include references to any other sources and where they apply in the article, which would be very important in judging documentation. Stylistically, I think the article could benefit from one or two photographs, perhaps a map of the route of the Expedition or at least the cities and locations visited, as well as a picture of the King, Portolá, or Serra, or even a contemporary Spanish soldier. This addition would be at your discretion, however. In conclusion, I think the article is concise and easily understandable, the main improvements being that the “Gaspar de Portolá” section could be rearranged, definitely more references could be added, and perhaps some kind of visual aid could be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanJosephM (talkcontribs) 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Difficulties with article[edit]

1. The article repeatedly says that the initiative for exploring Alta California came from the King of Spain. While this may be literally true, if there is documentation to prove it, would it be less archaic to say that it was initiated by the Spanish authorities? Wouldn’t the actual execution have been done by the viceregal government of Nueva España/New Spain?

2. Why in the picture of Gaspar de Portolá has he grown a beard and put on the armour of about 200 years earlier?

--Hors-la-loi 07:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talkcontribs)

Spelling[edit]

Sources differ, but the article about Gaspar de Portolà uses a grave accent, not an acute, and that corresponds to the way he actually signed his name (there's a facsimile in that article) so it seems to me that's the spelling we should use. A question and answer on the talk page confirms that the grave is the agreed spelling. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

There are three citations of the California Historical Society Quarterly which each have two different page references, 291 and 213. Which should it be? Colonies Chris (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed?[edit]

A cite tag was recently (12 July 2017) added to the 'Background' section by User:Howcheng. In an attempt to clear the tag, I asked what are the specific concerns? I don't see anything in the un-sourced (but heavily wikilinked) middle 3 paragraphs that seems to need a citation for verification, so I'm putting the question out to other editors. Post any specific concerns here, and I'll try to find sources. If there are none after 6 months, I propose to remove the tag. WCCasey (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary style#Technique (yes I know that guideline is about summary sections, but the same principle applies here): Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. So even though this section has links to other articles (presumably with references), you still need to have references here. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
So I ask again - what specifically is in those 3 paragraphs that you think is "likely to be challenged"? I'm trying to understand what you're looking for. WCCasey (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)