Talk:Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
i) The lede could probably be two paragraphs given the size of the article

ii) 'Britain had similar grievances, and was owed the bulk of the nearly $15m of debt Venezuela had obtained in 1881 and then defaulted on' - This confuses me, perhaps as I'm unfamiliar with Venezualan history. Why did Venezuela only get a hold of the debt in 1881? Where had the debt been before this? And what had created the debt, exactly? What was its source, specifically?

iii) 'Between February and June 1902 the British representative in Venezuela sent Castro seventeen notes about their concerns' - 'Their' seems the wrong word here - surely it would be 'his', unless there were multiple representatives, in which case this needs to be indicated with 'the British representatives'. Or perhaps it should be 'their country's concerns'?

iv) Roosevelt is introduced without a title, explaining that he was President at the time, made more confusing by being named Vice-President in 1901 a sentence later.

v) 'In mid-1901, with the distraction of the Boxer Rebellion gone, Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow decided to respond to the German concerns in Venezuela' - In the next sentence, the idea of a blockade is introduced as if it had already been decided by the German government, before they debated over the specifics. Can the above sentence be tweaked so that it states that a blockade was the choice made, otherwise the concept of a blockade comes out of the air. And were there any other ideas before a blockade was settled on - landing troops, for example?

vi) 'and in any case Kaiser Wilhelm II, German Emperor was unconvinced.' - Unconvinced about whether it should be pacific or martial, or whether a blockade should take place at all?

vii) wikilink the Foreign Office?

viii) 'In late 1901, the British Foreign Office became concerned that Britain would look bad if it remained idle while Germany acted to defend its citizens, and began sounding out the Germans about a possible common action, initially receiving a negative response' - It's unclear why the Foreign Office though Britain would look bad. Were British citizens in danger or complaining? Or was this just a bloody-minded 'if the Germans do it, then so must we' attitude?

ix) 'The Panther found the ship and declared that it would sink it, after which the rebel Admiral Killick, after evacuating the crew, blew up his ship, assisted by fire from the Panther' - Did Killick remain on the ship to blow it up, or did he leave for the Panther after setting some kind of explosive?

x) I would make it clear that Edward VII was the British King, and not a lesser member of the Royal Family.

xi) 'which would give Castro the opportunity to hide Venezuela's gunboats up the Orinoco.' - Why was this a major factor in the blockade, and would presumably lessen its effects? Would they have to be sunk to make a point, for example?

xii) 'an unofficial blockade was imposed on 9 December' - Why was it unofficial if ultimatums had been issued and ignored by the Venezualans?

xiii) 'The blockaders captured four Venezuelan warships' - How did they capture them? What vessels were involved, and were they German, British or a mix? I assume from the following sentence that they were German, at least at the beginning? The mention of four Germans to eight British comes a little late in the paragraph, I think. Perhaps rearranging the first paragraph to give details of the forces involved, before the seizure of Venezualan vessels, would be better.

xiv) 'unnecessary for the mere collection of some foreign debts' - Is this a quote that hasn't got quote-marks, because it sounds rather informal otherwise.

xv) 'In January 2003, as the blockade continued during the negotiations' - Woo, time-travel!

xvi) 'In addition, the crisis contributed to the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, described in his 1904 message to Congress' - Make clear that it was Roosevelt's message.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
i) Have you examined Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris for anything on the crisis not covered here? Its a favourite of mine, and I seem to remember there being some good stuff on the Blockade there. I'm thinking particularly on how it may have affected Roosevelt's prestige on foreign affairs, especially as it comes near to the Russo-Japanese agreement he helped to broker, and his claims that he was instrumental in arbitration.

ii) Last paragraph of the article needs citing.

iii) I think it needs to be more clear that although German traders were more prevalant in Venezuela, the German industrialists and bankers had more influence in Berlin; you could do this by explaining what the latter were actually doing in the country that needed a host of complaints. Building railroads and banks, I presume? At the moment, I don't see why they were complaining if traders dominated, even if the bankers/industrialists had more influence, if the latter (it seems) weren't doing much in Venezuela at the time.

iv) 'The turmoil of the last decade of the 19th century in Venezuela saw these suffer, and send "a stream of complaints and entreaties for protection" to Berlin.' - Can you expand more on this, even if just for a sentence or two. What turmoils were causing these complaints - I assume they were related to the caudillos continually seizing power.

v) 'In 1902 Castro's seizure of a British ship (on suspicion of aiding rebels, in another phase of Venezuelan civil war) tilted the balance in London.' - This sentence is fine, but the mention of a Venezualan civil war is a surprise - I guess that this civil war, or the latest version of it, was the cause of the turmoil in the country, and possibly the cause of the complaints? Just to reinforce that a little background on Venezuala would be good.

vi) 'tilted the balance in London.' - This confuses me, as it makes it seem as if the British didn't want to intervene, when the previous paragraph makes it clear they did. How did the seizure of a British ship tilt the balance in London? Surely it would have had to do that in Berlin, to make the Germans agree to joint action?

vii) Do we know why the British merchant vessel was boarded and its crew detained?

viii) I'm wondering if the details about the delays making the blockade official after several weeks would best be placed just after the last sentence of the Preparations sentence, so that it makes on coherent notion.

ix) Why did an Italian naval group arrive? What stake did the Italians have in this?

x) 'However, historical records suggest the German Kaiser had no interest in such a venture, and that motivations for the intervention lay with the insult to German prestige from Castro's actions, and only gave the go ahead after being sure that Britain would play the lead role' - This strikes at the heart of why the Germans conducted the blockade, and would seem to be best placed in the Preparation section, where it would be much better placed.

xi) At this moment, I'm unclear as to why Britain and Germany (and what about Italy?) accepted arbitration, given that you mention earlier that they were dubious as to how it could be enforced. You have Roosevelt's claims that he caused it, which you've debunked, but then given no other reasons. It seems to hint that it was public opinion turning against the two countries, and a fear of US naval intervention, but this needs to be made clear.

xii) Were the three countries, especially Germany, ever paid by Venezuala after the final legal ruling?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Some initial comments on the article from the Lede and Background sections. I'll be reviewing the rest of the article tomorrow. Skinny87 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Initial response: on 1, I've tweaked the British "seventeen notes" bit; the British debt I have no more detail on from the current sources (doesn't really matter though IMO); Roosevelt was VicePresident from March to September 1901, then President (so it's a bit awkward to be clear about just there; probably a more expansive sentence about the Doctrine would help here). On 2, no I don't have that book, or easy access to it; OK, the last sentence of the article needs a source; the others I can try and tweak for clarity, but not right now. I'll wait for you to finish before having another go at it. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about the debt, as I can't tell without more context how important the debt was. I guess, since it is at least mentioned, it will do for GA. The Roosevelt book was just a suggestion, it isn't a problem. As for the Roosevelt sentence, I think just adding 'President' as title at his first mention will work just fine, as the sentence seems to flow well with it: 'President Theodore Roosevelt, however, saw the Doctrine as concerning European seizure of territory, rather than intervention per se.[2] As Vice-President, in July 1901, Roosevelt said that "if any South American country misbehaves toward any European country, let the European country spank it."' Skinny87 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all my comments. Really interesting article, it just needs some more background info and a few tweaks here and there. Skinny87 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll come back to this, I've been working on the background Venezuela Crisis of 1895. Rd232 ^talk 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's no problem. I think GA reviews are meant to be open for about a week, but I'm sure there can be some lee-way if the nominator is working on it. Ping me when you've added some background details. Skinny87 (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added subnumbering to your points to help me get a handle on them - hope you don't mind. Rd232 ^talk 11:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

1. iii; iv; v; vi; vii; viii; ix; x; xiii; xv; xvi
2. vi
1. xi (Orinoco) [well sort of done; at least it's clear that seizing the gunboats was in the November agreement]
2. iii, iv, v (covered by expansion of Background and mention of Matos' insurrection)
2. xii (no detail available from that source though)
2. xi
2. ix
2. ii
1. i (lead)

Other:

1. ii (don't know, not that important I think)
1. xii (source says "unofficial", and it became official after public declaration of blockade on 20 December. A legal distinction I think.)
1. xiv (sounds fine to me; not a quote)
2. i (no easy access)
2. vii (no detail in source; probably just Castro retaliation)
2. x (Mitchell deals with it in context of Roosevelt's claims which makes it difficult to fit into the narrative of Preparations)
2. viii (no, as clarified now, because it relates to the arbitration issue)

Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've worked dead hard on this, and it shows. I've no issues now, given what you've noted above, so I'll pass this. Skinny87 (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution - without your excellent questions, I wouldn't have done the recent work that much improved the clarity of important aspects of it. Rd232 ^talk 09:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]