Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hippolyte de Bouchard was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 14, 2007

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Argentina     (Rated Start-Class)     This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine history. If you would like to participate, you can improve Hippolyte de Bouchard, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. High This article has been rated as High-importance. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject France (Rated Start-Class) France Portal Hippolyte de Bouchard is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments WikiProject California (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Contents 1 Status 1.1 Good Article Nomination Review 2 Copyright notice 3 Pirate 4 A matter of perspective? 5 POV 6 Request for comment 7 Later life??? 8 GA failed 9 Dates of birth and death 10 GA Review 10.1 GA Review, commencing 12 July 2007 10.2 Good Article Nomination Review [edit] Status [edit] Good Article Nomination Review Commencing: 2007-07-12 Completed: 2007-07-14 Nominator: Argentini an Reviewer: Gosgood Based on: Revision 142724031 as edited by Argentini an (Talk | contribs) at 15:07, 5 July 2007. Recommendation Bring coverage of subject matter at least up to B class, with "usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article." Use William Brown as a model. Apply to the Biography Project team to have an editor with an independent outlook reassess the article. When all of the work to bring the article up to a B class has been completed. Request a peer review. Tell your colleagues that you are seeking GA, perhaps eventually FA status, and that a previous GA reviewer felt that there were completeness issues. Recommendation Consider developing the voyage of La Argentina as a separate article. Much of the material in this article readily supports that scope, in terms of emphasis on dates, places and events. The Bouchard biography gets a summary version, with emphasis shifted to Bouchard, rather than a chronology of events. Recommendation Align the lead section so that it accurately recaps the article. Eliminate the hyperbole of the present version. Recommendation Recruit native English speaking editors with not quite your point of view to help with Point of view self-policing. These recruits can help with spelling, grammar, and idiomatic usage Recommendation Adopt an inline reference scheme; consider using citation templates. In introducing new material, you will require additional references. My experience with 40 - 60 KB articles runs to thirty separate reference works, with perhaps fifty to eighty citations in them. When it comes to quotes or statements that could be challenged, you need to be able to direct readers to specific page numbers so they see where you've gotten your information. Recommendation Please do not submit to Good Article Review an article with as many spelling and grammatical errors as this article had. It established an immediate poor impression in my mind. Before nominating any article to a GA or FA queue: Find an independent editor to copyedit the prose. The editor should not have worked on the article much so as to be able to look at the material with a fresh eye. Dry run the article by following the What is a good article? checklist with a thoroughness I have tried to strive for here. Recall the instructions on how to nominate a page at WP:GAC: "If you believe an article to be good according to the 'Good Article' criteria:" That means you should really believe a good article is a good article before submitting. Do not trivialize your self evaluation. My evaluation of this article ran over the course of several days. You should be at least an afternoon at your own review. Look at the talk pages of regular GA reviewers, such as Epbr123; many have additional checklists of items they deem important. If you feel that I have dealt with this article harshly or unfairly, please request a review with the Good Article Review team. Thank you for introducing me to Hippolyte de Bouchard. — Gosgood 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (edit) WikiProject Piracy Piracy Portal Hippolyte de Bouchard lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. WikiProject Piracy To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Piracy: Requests: Daniel Montbars, Diabolito, Henry Mainwaring, Ignatius Pell Expand: Charles Vane, Edward England, Emanuel Wynn, George Lowther, Henry Every, Pierre Le Grand, Roche Braziliano, Thomas Cocklyn, Woodes Rogers, Cleanup: Buccaneer, Israel Hands Verify: Alexandre Exquemelin Copyedit: Golden Age of Piracy Images:
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] Copyright notice

• The article's present text, taken directly from [1], gives permission in its copyright notice that:

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Does this imply the article as it stands, cannot be revised or incorporated into a more detailed article ? MadMax 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an article can be described as a "license document", and that is an exact quote of the beggining of the GFDL license text. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 14:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate

I have NEVER in my life someone calling Bouchard a pirate. As you can see here [2] in a note at the end, the author excused himself for callin him pirate in an older version and reffered a letter from an argentine history professor "Captain Bouchard was a corsair from the then very young free state of the "United Provinces of Rio de la Plata River," (direct ancestor of the present Argentine Republic). He was encharted from the government to have a legal "corsair license" against any property of the Spanish Empire all over the world. As you may see reading a very interesting book about those Bouchard's trips "El Corsario del Plata" by Daniel E. Cichero, Bouchard marked with a red cross each door of an American's house to be avoided during any confiscation, protecting in that way interests of Americans. So, he attacked and confiscated only properties of Spanish administration, an enemy in those times. Then, as you may know, both countries were involved in a (very cruel) independence war."

But maybe he war wrong, then we see here [3], that he is said to be corsair by an article of the oldest and most readed newspaper in Argentina.

But, nah, they are all wrong, or lying, it cant be true, only a filthy pirate can conquer in 16 hours what USA couldn't for years. But then we have this page,[4] part of the official web of the Argentine Marine (it is probably right). It is the biography of one of Bouchard's assistants, Tomás Espora, who became General Commander of the Marine and there Bouchard is also titled "corsair". If anyone has a more reputable and important source that says that Bouchard was a pirate then may Cite sources -Argentino 18:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

PD: Wikipedia's frist line of the article "pirate": A pirate is one who robs, pillages, or plunders at sea, or sometimes the shore, without a commission from a recognized sovereign nation.

Argentina declared independence 2 years before. Bouchard managed to make recognise Argentina as a sovereign nation to King Karakakowa from Hawaii, the fact that he almost conquered the islands do it does not care, does it?Argentino 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And more, in the same article, there IS a difference between pirate and corsair: "A privateer or corsair used similar methods to a pirate, but acted while in possession of a commission or letter of marque from a government or king authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation."

He only attacked spanishs Argentino 18:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A matter of perspective?

Perhaps the WP article Privateer says it best:

To the target country, a privateer looked very much like a pirate, and indeed this was the intention. The only difference was that pirates were considered outlaws by all nations, while privateers had immunity from the country that commissioned them. Privateers were sometimes known as "gentleman pirates".

Hippolyte de Bouchard examines both of these perspectives. There are many sources that describe Bouchard and his forces as pirates (virtually all taking the Spanish point of view), some even questioning his true motives, not the least of which include:

[5], [6], and [7] the latter of which states:

In 1818, the mission was visited by California's only pirate, Bouchard. Equipped with two sailing ships, he attacked missions on the coast in the name of a South American province which was engaged in revolt against Spain. His connection with the revolutionists was more fiction than fact, but he found it provided a convenient excuse for his attack on the settlements.

Also [8]:

In 1818, the pirate Bouchard attacked the California coast, supposedly in the name of a South American province that was rebelling against Spain. In truth, he used the revolution as an excuse to attack the California settlements.

[9]:

Hipolito Bouchard, a pirate from Argentina, found the cove at Dana Point a safe fefuge [sic]. In 1818, he docked his pirate fleet in the cove while his sailors were raiding and setting fire to parts of nearby Mission San Juan Capistrano.

and finally [10]:

…the pirate Hippolyte de Bouchard. (A French citizen, Bouchard was technically sailing under letters of marque from the insurgent government of Argentina and was thus legally attacking its enemy, the Spanish empire). Nevertheless, to the citizens of this poor but loyal province, he was a pirate and remains so to this day in story and song and in the large painting near the Law Library in the Santa Barbara County Courthouse corridor.

--Lordkinbote 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first page didn't call Bouchard "pirate" directly, and the others werent written by any kind of historian, so, unless they were written by an illuminated soul, they are probably wrong.
(They arent even official pages, or pages of any important association/organisation.)
Argentino 18:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And your last link says "Nevertheless, to the citizens of this poor but loyal province, he was a pirate" (just a point of view!) Argentino 18:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We're going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Even the article you cite from La Nación alludes to the fact that "...in the zones bordering Monterey he [Bouchard] is seen like a pirate...", which is what the main article here states. And I regard the California Mission Studies Association (here's yet another reference, written by Dr. Sasha Honig, Professor Emeritus of History at Bakersfield College [11] and Mission San Juan Capistrano as "important" organizations in this context.--Lordkinbote 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is OK, but tell me, in your opinion, considering that a pirate is "One who robs, pillages, or plunders at sea, or sometimes the shore, without a commission from a recognized sovereign nation", is it fair to call Bouchard a pirate? Argentino 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issue here is not regarding what is fair or unfair, it has to do with historical accuracy and NPOV. As some of the cited text illustrates, there exist at least a few opinions that some of Bouchard's actions may not have been consistent with the authority granted him by the Argentinian government. In the end, regardless of his true motives, he was "...most often regarded as a pirate" (by his adversaries, at any rate — he is frequently referred to as "California's only pirate") and that is as much a part of his legacy as his perceived good deeds are.--Lordkinbote 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seemed logical to me that, if a pirate is someone that is not fighting for a determinated state, and Bochard was fighting for one, then he was not a pirate, but OK. Argentino 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The statement "...though among the Spanish settlements in California he was regarded as a pirate has been removed in one form or another three times from the article, twice with no explanation and the last time with the edit summary "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." This is a misinterpretation of NPOV policy: that the residents of California saw Bouchard as a pirate is well documented, and is an issue that has been previously discussed herein at some length. The removal of this fact by one user, for apparantly personal reasons, IS POV based on the above definition. If I have to open an RFC on this point I will to keep this from becoming an edit war. I suggest that you move on, Argentino.--Lord Kinbote 06:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish settlements in California during the XIX Century are not a "big minority"; there isn't an article about Spanish settlements in California, therefore the inhabitant's oppinion (aka. Point of View) is vastly limited and does not belong to Wikipedia. Nobody has ever said there was a problem with the documentation but that is not the point. Read the whole sentence!:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. — WP:NPOV

So please don't add it anymore —Argentino (talk/cont.) 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're still not interpreting the policy correctly; POV has to do with articles and editors, NOT with academic sources cited in articles. Just because someone in Argentina refuses to acknowledge that Bouchard attained a reputation in Caifornia as a pirate does not invalidate that fact, nor trivialize it. To the Argentinians he's considered a hero; to the Spaniards, he was a marauder. As per WP:CITE:

"Many subject matters will have a major prevailing view by academic scholars and a minority view. Others will have various viewpoints depending on which scholar or writer you speak with. Attempt to cite sources from different viewpoints as to present a fair and balanced view of what the academic community believes to be true. Annotation reporting the POV of a particular source will help our users."

I'm not convinced that the pirate angle is a minority view. The article itself is rife with references to works that refer to Bouchard as a pirate. This point was thoroughly debated 10 months ago and should not have been resurrected unilaterally. As I stated above, if you wish to persist in this I'm more than happy to open an RFC to settle the issue once and for all.--Lord Kinbote 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I trust WP:NPOV —Argentino (talk/cont.) 15:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are way off on this, Argentino. Lord Kinbote's arguments meet all of the requirements of WP:V; yours do not. The information should properly be included in the article to ensure a balanced (i.e. neutral) viewpoint, and your continued removal of the same borders on WP:POINT at the very least. I'll be happy to oppose you in an RFA should one be needed on that basis. I'd suggest that you devote your energy to providing source information for the remainder of the article, which it is sorely lacking. Regards, Mdhennessey 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive... an account with less than 50 edits has a way-avobe average knowledge of the wikipedia policy. However the matter is not the verifiability of User:Lordkinbote's edits, the matter is that there are extremely few people who beelive that Bouchard was a pirate, and because of WP:NPOV that oppinions should not be placed in the article. If he had tried to put that point of view in the part of the article about the conquest of California I wouldn't have complained but he put it in the opening section, and that is too much. And nobody beelives he was an actual pirate. In 1918 he was accused of piracy and since he was named Admiral in Chief of the Peruvian Navy I assume he was not hanged. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

...and you lack a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy. It may interest you to know that while looking for sources on the material you have added recently I consulted the Spanish Wikipedia (which is a Featured Article) and found the following passage referring to Bouchard and his crew, right in the introductory paragraph (loosely translated into English via Babelfish): "Their actions, in particular the ones in California and Central America, have not deserved a unanimous judgment. For the Argentine historians their facts constitute remarkable heroic acts within Argentine naval history; for others, Bouchard, due to his excesses, was simply a cruel pirate." Guess those folks got it wrong, too. Mdhennessey 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they haven't. I have never denied that someone said he was a pirate. However, in the Spanish version that is the only place where the Spanish's view is expressed because the article has never been discussed in the talk [12] and because the Spanish wikipedia is not the English one and has different guidelines and policy. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

• Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard: An edit war in the making; User:Argentino insists on removing well-sourced material because the entries do not conform to his particular POV on the subject, which flies in the face of WP:CITE and WP:V, among other things. The specific issue, that "...among the Spanish settlements in California he [Bouchard] was regarded as a pirate..." has been discussed at length going as far back as December 2005, and is also acknowledged in the Spanish WP featured article [13], which this article has by-and-large been copied and translated from by Argentino. 05:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please post opinions regarding the discussions listed in the three (3) previous sections as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies (and reiterated immediately above):

This is a false accusation. I have said a LOT of times it was not because of inacurated sources (but Lordkinbote just ignored me) , moreover, I said I agreeded the spanish sttlers of California of the first half of the XIX century did regard him as a pirate. However he had a corsair license, his ship had the argentine flag, and all the money he made was given to the Argentine State. Then it is ovious that he was not an actual pirate, otherwise the after the trial made against him by the chileans, he would not have been appointed for the Peruvian Navy to be eventually named Admiral in Chief; he would have been hanged. The only non-neutral piont of view is the Spanish-Californian and so I proceeded to delete that from the opening section because of WP:NPOV.

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. "

The fact that he was a corsair and not a pirate is not a point of view, it is the only objective possibility. You don't say that a soldier is a murderer because he kills, he is intended to. Likewise you don't say that a spy is a traitor, it is his/her job. I can't see the problem. you may like it or not, but he was a corsair and history can not be changed. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the exact dispute? Why not put both points of view into the article and be done with it? For example, "Some California historians regard him as a pirate (cite sources), while Argentinians view him as a bona fide corsair (cite sources)"? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 00:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Argentino, lo siento but I agree with Lordkinbote. The Spanish-Californians were non-neutral and did (apparently) view him as a pirate, even though he was operating under a letter of marque from Argentina. I think that it is appropriate in WPedia to include both historical points of view.

The "small minority" POV quote you are relying upon only applies to how many modern scholars hold the POV. That is, if only a small minority of modern scholars agreed that he was a viewed as a pirate, then perhaps the statement should not be included. However, if most modern scholars agree that Spanish-Californians viewed him as a pirate, then that is a historical fact as to which there is generally modern agreement - as such it is appropriate to include. NorCalHistory 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading the article one more time, perhaps it's not quite appropriate to include the "regarded as a pirate" statement in the first sentence of the lead. Hippolyte de Bouchard did a lot of things, and to place the "regarded as a pirate" statement in such a prominent position in the lead is not quite the appropriate place, given the importance of everything else that he did. Perhaps the statement should be moved to the end of the lead. NorCalHistory 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If de Bouchard was operating under a letter of marque, then I do not believe the "pirate" label is appropriate. Perhaps a link could be inserted into the article which would route Wikipedians to another article in which the privateer/pirate issue is discussed in detail. I know that the vox populi may not understand the difference, and might use the term "pirate." But within the encyclopedia, I think that the distinction is important. --Fix Bayonets! 08:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've always said. A reply to NorCalHistory: Indeed, he did a lot of things. After this debate is over I'll add the battle against the kingdom of Hawaii and the bombing of El Callao, which are very important too.

And for GeorgeLouis, I don't think there is any Californian historian saying he was a pirate. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true, at least 4 sources I've checked either refer to him as a pirate outright or state that he is regarded as a pirate:

1. Jones, California from the Conquistadores to the Legends of Laguna ("Pirate Buchar") ASIN B0006R3LVM;
2. Leffingwell, California Missions and Presidios: The History & Beauty of the Spanish Missions (refers to Bouchard as a pirate and a brigand) ISBN 0-89658-492-5;
3. Yenne, The Missions of California ("California's only pirate") ISBN 1-59223-319-8; and
4. Young, The Missions of California (refers to Bouchard as a pirate) ISBN 0-8118-1938-8.

All of this doesn't include the various web sites listed that use the "pirate" term, the article on the Spanish Wikipedia as referenced above ("For the Argentine historians their facts constitute remarkable heroic acts within Argentine naval history; for others, Bouchard, due to his excesses, was simply a cruel pirate"), or the Wikipedia article privateer: "To the target country, a privateer looked very much like a pirate, and indeed this was the intention. The only difference was that pirates were considered outlaws by all nations, while privateers had immunity from the country that commissioned them. Privateers were sometimes known as 'gentleman pirates'."

--Lord Kinbote 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please tell me the ISBN number of the one who says he was a pirate and doesn't mention he was a corsair? Since I am allowed into the "history" building of the national library I'll be able to check. Remember that we are not discussing whether your edits are right or not, only the importance of them. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The requested info has been added above in bold.--Lord Kinbote 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have discarded number 2 and 3 because neither Leffingwell nor Yenne are professional historians: the first is a photographer is own blog and the second is an "author and book producer" [14] —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too quick to dismiss Bill Yenne, he's got dozen's of history-related works to his credit. Out of curiosity I ran a text search on Amazon.com using "Hippolyte de Bouchard" and "Hipolito Bouchard" as the search criteria; nearly every text excerpt contained the word "pirate" though as Rjensen's recent edit summary pointed out, Bouchard had a "minimal role in California." Clearly, there is a cultural if not a historical legacy--I'd support some version of the Spanish article's treatment, sans the word cruel. Mdhennessey 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Young hasn't published any history books, and among his pubblications is "Beautiful Spas and Hotsprings of California"; and I can't find Jones. The book is not aviable (unless I buy a $130 collector's edition). So there is no historian (man/woman that has studied many years and knows how to deal with primary sources and identify false documents) who denies that Bouchard had the permission of Argentina to be a corsair, or at least no historian whose books are aviable. So that is still a mere subjective point of view. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody opposed me in the comment (2/0/1), I'll proceed to remove the "pirate" bit from the opening section and to add it to the California Raids section. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 10:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later life???

This article is missing a last act! It abruptly ends with his December 1818 raids on California. It has absolutely no information on what happened to him after this, even though he is said to have lived until 1843. Obviously, something is missing here.

Because of this missing section, and because citations are almost entirely absent, I've changed the article rating from B-class to Start-class. Peter G Werner 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article. The criteria requires inline citations throughout the article to allow readers to check information to ensure its verifiability. The best way to help fix this would be to go through each section and add an inline citation to each statement that you think may be questioned. Additionally, the lead section should be expanded more to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for more details. Maybe also consider getting a peer review to help fix any other issues the article may have. When you have done these things, and looked over the rest of the criteria, please do consider renominating again. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Quick-failed just on footnotes and refs again. THey come after punctuation with no space between, not before them. The web ref format is very poor. See Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) for good ref samples. Sumoeagle179

[edit] Dates of birth and death

There seem to be discepancies between sources on the dates of birth and death. Some say 1783-1843 [15][16], one says he died in 1837,[17] and one that simply says he was born "around 1785".[18] This article used to say 1783-1843,[19] but now it says 1780-1843 in the into while elsewhere it says he died in 1837. If there's a serious dispute over his dates of birth and death we should say so. Either way we should be more consistent. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The date of death is 1843. The problem is the date of birth only; I have found 1780 more times in books, but 1783 is more common in internet. I think books are more reliable than internet so I added 1983 small together with 1780. --Argentini an 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good treatment of the birthdates. Regarding the death, the article now says:

• During his retirement he decided to live in the properties that had been given to him by the Peruvian Government, San Javier y San José de la Nazca. A long time ago he had lost contact with his family: after the expedition with Brown he had lived with his wife only ten months, and he never knew his younger daughter who was born after the begining of the expedition arround the world. In his fields he treated the slaves as he treated the sailors. Fed up of his punishments, one of his servants killed him on Januay 4 1837. [20]

Do we know that to be incorrect? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of an alternative date of death. --Argentini an 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you said above that 1843 was his date of death, but you wrote in the atricle that he was killed in 1837. Granted, pirates didn't lead tidy lives that make record keeping easy. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I missed that. Now the article says "1843". Do you think the lead section and the references are good enough to renominate this article as a GA candidate? --Argentini an 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Yes, I think it's worth nominating for GA. Your work on the article has improved it substantially. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I have added a request for a review of the GA-failed. WP:GA/R --Argentini an 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The reviewers agreed the article should not have been "quick-failed" and told me to nominate it gain --Argentini an 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was also recommended that you make some necessary changes. In its current state, it may not be quick-failed, but, if reviewed adequately, it will fail review. If it should pass in its current state, it would probably go back to GA/R and be subsequently delisted if improvements were not made. I recommend looking back over the discussion, now in archive, and address listed issues. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review, commencing 12 July 2007

I have volunteered to be the Good Article reviewer for the nomination placed by Argentini an and have left introductary remarks on his talk page. If he and I agree to this proceeding, I'll be leaving my comments here. I will employ a three-tier scheme of remarks: : you are past the gate. : I think you've got some work to get to FA, but it suffices for the overall "decent, satisfactory" criteria of GA. : You've got a little work to do for GA. Unless someone suggests otherwise, I'll be basing my remarks on Revision 142724031 as edited by Argentini an at 15:07, 5 July 2007. I expect to make my first pass comments here on 15 July 2007. Take care. — Gosgood 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I have completed my review. Particulars below:

[edit] Good Article Nomination Review

• Commencing: 2007-07-12
• Completed: 2007-07-14
• Nominator: Argentini an
• Reviewer: Gosgood
• Based on: Revision 142724031 as edited by Argentini an (Talk | contribs) at 15:07, 5 July 2007.
• Remark: On 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC), this review was amended by an anonymous editor. Anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, though, according to guidelines talk page commentary should be signed. Since I do not wish this editor's contributions to this review to be construed as parts of my review, please note that Boldface commentary outslide of list indicia ( 'Recommendation' ) is that of 66.174.92.167 (Talk), and his or her marginalia does not necessarily reflect my point of view. Take care. — Gosgood 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. It is well written. In this respect	Oppose. This is the summary rating of 1a, and 1b. See particular remarks below.
	(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and	Oppose. There are grammatical problems throughout the prose; some passages exhibit a high frequency of errors, some low, but all have some kind of error. misspellings, misplaced modifiers, the use of 'weighted' instead of 'weighing' as in 'weighing anchor', incorrect use of prepositions ('on' and 'in' are frequently exchanged) and omitted subordinating conjunctions are common errors. A passage drawn from Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) illustrates both the type and frequency of errors: On 17 August Bouchard arrived to[1] a harbor in[2] Kealakekua bay,[3] in the western coasto[4] of the island of Hawaii. A group of natives came close to the ship in a canoe and informed them, in English, that a corvette was stationed in the same harbor, which used to be Spanish but had been sold to King Kamehameha I.[5] They also told them that the previous night a frigate had departed. Bouchard decided to chase the frigate, which they found quickly due to the lack of wind. He ordered Sheppard to take a rowing[6] boat to ask the frigate's commander information[7] about the ship in the Hawaiian harbor. Sheppard found out that it was the Santa Rosa or the Chacabuco, a corvette that had weighed anchor from[8] Buenos Aires almost the same day the La Argentina had. The crew of Santa Rosa had mutined near Chile's coast and headed to Hawaii. The French privateer forced the frigate to return to the harbor, because he suspected that among its crew were hiding some of the mutinees.[9] While investigating the men he found nine men he had seen in Buenos Aires[10] and punished them. After an interrogation,[11] he found out[12] the revolt's leaders were hiding in[13] Kauai Island. ^ wrong preposition. use 'at'. May be clearer to simply write 'at Kealakekua Bay' ^ preposition 'in' implies within the bay, away from any shoreline. suggest 'of' or 'on' ^ 'Bay' part of a proper name ^ spelling: 'coast' ^ Misplaced modifier. Kealakekua Bay used to be Spanish? The writer probably means that the corvette used to be Spanish, but the restrictive relative clause introduced by 'which' immediately follows 'Bay', so the pronoun 'which' is a proxy for 'Bay', restricting it among all possible bays to the ones that used to belong to Spaniards. ^ strictly speaking, this is not an error. 'rowing' is a present participial derived from the verb 'to row' and may be used as an adjective to modify 'boat.' However, this is not typical usage; an English writer would simply use the word 'rowboat'. ^ omitted preposition 'for information' ^ That's quite a distance to weigh an anchor from. A poor choice of preposition. Probably the crew of Santa Rosa drew the anchor up from the harbor bottom at Buenos Aires. ^ Spelling: mutineers ^ Seems that a relative clause is missing its pronoun. Adding 'that' gives us a complete clause 'that he had seen in Buenos Aires' and this clause can then modify the 'men' of 'nine men' to indicate that they were one and the same as Bouchard had seen in Buenos Aires. However, 'investigating the men he found nine men' stylistically grates. Consider rephrasing. Here is one possibility: "During interrogations, Bouchard recognized nine men whom he had seen earlier on in Buenos Aires." ^ Omitted comma, to set off leading prepositional phrase ^ missing 'that', here a subordinating conjunction introducing an adverbial clause which identifies what Bouchard had learned. ^ Wrong preposition: 'in' buries the revolt's leaders into the soil of Kauai Island. 'on' places the revolt's leaders on top of Kauai Island. Now I am sure, that among most featured articles and all the articles I've written, there are similar kinds of grammatical errors. I am sure I have (will) commission similar errors in this review, but twelve errors in about ten percent of the prose is a tad excessive. Recommendation: Recruit an editor with known copyediting skills to edit all the prose in the article. This recruit should not be among the article's top contributors; these worthies are probably seeing the prose in a habitual way, given the extensive work they have done on the article. The recruit should be a native or near-native English speaker. In the absence of such a recruit, I would suggest reading the article backwards: that practice supresses comprehension of narrative flow which permits one to concentrate on spelling, punctuation and sentence structure. Much of the article appears to have been translated from Spanish by Babel Fish or some other software program, which might explain the idiomatic translations througout. As suggested, a native speaker fluent in both English and Spanish should be recruited to clean up this aspect of the article.
	(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.	Oppose Link checking needs to be done. Here are some examples I have come across: In at least one case, 'draft' (the depth of water a ship draws especially when loaded) points to Deck (ship), an article that never mentions the word 'draft' anywhere. A link for Spanish Governor Pablo Vicente Solá points to a list of colonial Californian governors, though Solá has an dedicated article. A link to Soledad, California points to the nearby city of Monterrey, though Soledad does have a specific article. The reference link 'The Hero's Biography' turns up a search engine directory, possibly the HTTP server's preprogrammed HTTP 404 response. Unfortunately, The Wayback Machine offers no preserved page. There are consistency and continuity problems. Just before the start of Sandwich Islands (Hawaii), the reader learns that Bouchard placed Peter Corney in command of the Santa Rosa before learning exactly how Santa Rosa came into Bouchard's possession. That occupies much of the following section. In places, the article refers to members of Bouchard's crew without establishing their relationship with Bouchard; they simply appear in the narrative. For example, at one point we read that "Bouchard ordered Sommers, Greissac and Van Buren to use three boats to capture the ship." It is the first time Greissac and Van Buren's names occur in the narrative, and, since no explanations are given about who they are, I remain perplexed. I suspect, in reviewing the article history, that some of the Campaign with La Argentina was based originally on a translated excerpt from one of the references [(De Marco 2002]?) it is possible that the initial reference to Greissac and Van Buren happen to have fallen outside the section chosen for translation. (Revision 81396002 from 2006-10-14 bears a {{RoughTranslation}} tag for Spanish). Layout: Approve Minor problem with some image tags that are setting explicit widths. MediaWiki users can set preferred widths for page graphics, to accommodate their particular monitor dimensions and graphics cards, and I see no reason why any image should override a user preference. Headers reflect the importance and level of detail of following matter. Jargon: Approve I came across no obscure words that were left unexplained. Words to avoid: There is one minor case: "a sailor struck one of his superiors, which was naturally considered insubordination." A bit condescending. Most readers can accept this as insubordination without being egged on. List incorporation: Approve Apart from standard notes, references, and external links, there are no bullet-point lists that substitute for prose. Fiction: Not applicable The article is not about fictional works, imaginary worlds or the like. Lead: Oppose: The lead reports that Bouchard "occupied California and raised the Argentine flag in it..." The phrase 'California' of 1818 meant Alta California, then a part of New Spain, and encompassed a region including modern day California, Nevada, Utah, northern Arizona, and southwestern Wyoming, a breathtaking occupation indeed for a force of about four hundred men [Chapman, 1921]. The body of the article documents the more modest occupation of Monterrey for a period of six days, a period upon which references obtained from the article and found by myself both concur. (History of California, by Theodore Henry Hittell, Pacific Press Publishing House and Occidental publishing Co., 1885 pp 648 – ) A similar claim regarding the 'blocking [blockading] of the Phillipines, an archipelago of 7,000 islands, similarly stops the heart. In contrast, the article discusses a two month blockade of Manila. An attack on Hawaii cited in the lead cannot be found anywhere in the article. The only incident I can find concerns the capture and execution of mutineers from the Santa Rosa. on the island of Kauai. This incident is more akin to a police action conducted by Bouchard on his own colleagues — an 'internal affair' — than an attack on the (then) soverign Hawaiian kingdom. Less glaringly, the lead refers to Bouchard's former commander using anglicized form 'William Brown', but the text refers to the latinized 'Guillermo Brown'. Finally, there is one of the ever-present misspellings ('reaided' instead of 'raided') marring the lead. The exaggerations of the lead paragraphs may stem, perhaps, from a notion that it is proper to substitute for a local placename (Manila) the encompassing place name ('Philippines'). Whatever the reasoning, the effect is one of hyperbole, and of a sort which can only bring ridicule upon Wikipedia. Clearly, the lead must be rewritten so as to function as a terse summary of the article, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Lead section.
	2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:	Neutral. My net evaluation of 2a, 2b, and 2c is neutral primarily because of the lack of inline citations, and a deficiency of references.
	(a) provides references to sources used;	Guarded approval. There are about fifteen unique references provided; the information about each reference varies, and the formatting varies. As is often the case with web-based references, one source has disappeared (The Hero's Biography, noted above). While this has no bearing on my final evaluation, I do suggest to the authors to adopt {{cite}} and variants. It does make wiki editing harder, an inconvenience to editors. But these templates furnish checklists for editors to fill out and format the references uniformly. This leads to more consistent references, which are more convenient for users. In my opinion, convenience to users trumps convenience to editors. I do have some discomforts: I believe more references can be used. I suspect that there is too much reliance on [De Marco 2002], which has affected the scope of coverage, contributing, in part, to this article's shift of focus from 'Bouchard the Man' (In the scope of Wikipedia Biography) to 'Events surrounding Bouchard's circumnavigation of the globe' (In the scope of Wikipedia Military History). See remarks in 3(b). These additional references would aid in developing aspects of Bouchard's life beyond the 1817-1819 circumnavigation of the globe. See 3(a). There is too much faith placed in web-based references. The lead paragraph indicates some uncertainty about the year of birth (1780 or 1783), and sets the year of death to 1843. In contrast, the Spanish Wikipedia reports precise birth and death dates of 15 January 1780 and 4 January 1837. The Spanish Wikipedia appears not to cite any backing references; the contributing editors on the English side cite the authority of The California State Military Museum. That web page give no author and does not cite its references. As observed in Verifiability guideline, websites are generally self-published sources; these do not have the editorial oversight functions of publishers. For the immediate future, we should note that both birth and death dates are uncertain. We should then try to find reliable, editorially vetted sources that either give precise dates, or report that Bouchard's birth and death dates are not known with certainty.
	(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and	Oppose. As raised by Nehrams2020 in his 28 May 2007 quick fail, Sumoeagle179 in his follow-on June 11 quick-fail, and by the Good Article Review team during their June 16 due-diligence review of these two quick-fails, (specifically, comments from Malkinann LaraLove, and User:Homestarmy), there are very few inline citations to help a curious reader work with the provided sources. Consider one example. [T. H. Hittell 1885] on page 653 of his history notes that when Bouchard quit Monterey, Pablo Vicente Solá retakes the town and discovers two of Bouchard's men in the woods: they are deserters and one, according to Hittell, has a surname of Echeverría. This is tantalizing, because Vicente Anastacio Echeverría is cited in the Wikipedia article as one of Bouchard's expedition organizers, a senior member of the endeavor. One would like to pursue the possibility that the two names refer to the same individual and explore the consequences of a senior man abandoning Bouchard late in the expedition. The article is mute on the topic of men deserting Bouchard as he departed Monterey, so the curious reader is obliged to check underlying sources. However, the paragraph covering Bouchard's departure has no citation. Since the few citations that are in place tend to refer to [De Marco 2002] around pages 172-183, then the curious (and Spanish literate) reader could hazard a guess on a place to start looking. Typically, one can't hazard such guesses, and even in this fortunate case, it would have been kinder to the reader to simply indicate where in [De Marco 2002] Bouchard's departure is covered. Given the number of requests for inline citations, now going back for more than a month, I do hope the nominating editors can accommodate; given these extensive heads-up, improvement in this area is key to my own approval of this article.
	(c) contains no original research.	Approve As noted before, I believe the principle contributing editors translated from Spanish references into English, and I am assuming a good faith effort. In other words, they did not overtly insert original research as they translated.
	3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:	Oppose. Not all major aspects of Bouchard's life are addressed (a), nor does the article remain focussed on the primary article topic: Bouchard himself. (b) This latter point may very well be a show-stopper because, I believe, structural changes would have to take place in the article to shift focus back to Bouchard, and away from the circumnavigation of the globe. Unless a number of editors collaborate, gathering fresh references and incorporating these into the article, then I doubt that this piece could be bought up to a GA level in the maximum seven day grace period that the On Hold tag allows. Particulars follow.
	(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and	Oppose. All projects whose scopes this article falls within rate it Start. The distinguishing attribute of Start class articles is: "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas..." In the present case, the article furnishes a wealth of detail concerning Bouchard's activities with Brown and his later circumnavigation of the globe: the four years from 1815 to 1819. Every other period in his life is only lightly covered. It is unsurprising that, for a 19th century individual, the early years have little documentation — the man is not famous yet. But what of the period from 1820 to 1843? This twenty three year period, nearly a quarter century, is covered in about half the word count as was expended on the 18 month run-up to the circumnavigation of the globe. Even with the 1815-1819 period, there are lapses. How Bouchard negotiated the return of the Santa Rosa to the Argentine flag entails a gap of intelligence. Hawaiian king Kamehameha I tells Bouchard that he had purchased the ship from the mutineers. He would need compensation. The very next paragraph, the Santa Rosa is under Bouchard's command. What kind of magic was pulled? We are told, in full, wiki-linked grandeur, that Bouchard was dressed in the uniform of a Lieutenant Colonel of the United Provinces of River Plate. That's nice, but to what effect? Charles Edward Chapman's A History of California (pages 441 – 445), 1921 furnishes some insight. That account relates that the Hawaiian king knew full well that the possessors of the Santa Rosa were mutineers; he had siezed the Santa Rosa and imprisoned the mutineers. With Bouchard's arrival, and representing himself as an offical functionary of the Argentine government, one could imagine that he could bluff his way into possession of the ship. In any case, the story here is has logical gaps. Bouchard's arrival at Valparaíso Chile, the arrest and trial, the involvement of Cochrane, all beg questions: Were there trumped-up charges so that Lord Cochrane could steal Bouchard's treasure? Seems that way, but that is just my speculation. What of José de San Martín? Could he not help his fellow Argentine? The article is mute on the revolutionary realpolitick that must have revolved around the trial.
	(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).	Oppose. I believe, in fact, with the principle contributors not being particularly aware of it, that the biography of Bouchard has become overwhelmed by the story of his circumnavigation of the globe. This article is primarily about that circumnavigation. Amazingly, Bouchard himself is crowded out of his own biography. The two largest troves of information, Campaign with Guillermo Brown and Campaign with La Argentina are chronologies. They track ship movements, dates of attacks, crews assigned to missions and other details. The text is primarily about the voyage and invests but few words in Bouchard himself. I think this stems from an over-reliance on [De Marco 2002], who, perhaps, placed greater emphasis on the mission than the man. I have now read the article about a dozen times, and, though the article is long, I know very little about Bouchard: He had a vile temper. Oh my. What I do know about is one way that a young country went about establishing its presence in the world: by mounting a round-the-world harassment of the Spanish empire. The little mouse that roared. It is a fascinating story that, if developed in its own right, can become a featured article. Unfortunately, it has been mis-filed under the biography of 'Hippolyte de Bouchard.' And what of that biography? Undeveloped, and in need of editorial air, water, earth and light. Recommendation 1: I would invite the contributing editors to review the biography of another Argentine, Guillermo Brown, currently a GA. Note that, in Brown's biography, no one event dominates the narrative in the same way that the circumnavigation of the world dominates Bouchard's article. the events of William's life are given emphasis in proportion to their significance in his life. There is more discussion about how Brown behaved during these significant events, and less about people or things peripheral to Brown behaved. I would recommend using the Brown article as a model for the future development of Bouchard's biography. It would entail cutting back on the circumnavigation story and shifting its emphasis so that Bouchard is given greater play; this probably means going to the library to find references that flesh out other periods of his life, particularly the twenty-three or so years following his circumpolar expedition. Recommendation 2: Regard this good article candidate as being misnamed. Given its scope, organization, and the relative weight it places on events rather than on the mission commander, call it the "Voyage of the La Argentina," It can be cross-linked to the Bouchard biography, which would carry only a summary version of Argentina's first circumnavigation of the world. In its present form, this article can be more readily adopted to the circumnavigation mission than to the biography of Bouchard.
	4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.	Neutral. The writing reflects a modest, but sympathetic bias toward Bouchard, which sometimes flares up into hyperbole, such as in the article lead. Among Argentines, there are scholars and educators who advance the view as Bouchard as hero. So be it. Their work is legitimate and worthy of citation in the encyclopedia. However, corsairs are agents of governments charged to conduct missions against civilian targets of enemy governments. Such circumstances naturally give rise to hostile scholarship among victim populations and their descendants. These too are legitimate sources that, in the company of sympathetic sources, engender a more nuanced portrait of the man. During the October Request for Comment, a number of editors pointed out references hostile to Bouchard. I believe the current community of editors are aware of the article's bias, and are exercising a good faith effort to be neutral toward the subject, but as many editors know, bias can be subtle, and sympathies for the subject creep into the writing unawares. The article REEKS of local bias. Per WP:POV: A Wikipedian contributor might be unaware that his writing is biased, if he harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. Suggest that someone NOT from Argentina go top to bottom on this one. Recommendation: Recruit an editor with North American biases. Editors that one respects and trusts, but who have very different world views, are often the best agent to keep one intellectually honest. And one has no shortage of arguments, either. ;)
	5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.	Neutral. There was an edit war in October, 2006 with an editor who wished to inject a distinctive point of view into the biography; a request for comment seemed to have ended hostilities. Since that time there has been a modest amount of editing going on. I think the article is undergoing change, so I do not find the description 'stable' apt at this time, but the development of the article seems reasonably coherent. I don't think the volatility of the article affects its potential to be a good article, near term, but it may be an issue with any contemplated featured article review.
	6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.	Support There are two minor procedural issues with image tagging, I believe, can be easily rectified. Good Image:Bouchard2.gif released under {{PD-art}} Good Image:Bouchard.gif released under {{PD-art}} "Retrato de Hipólito Bouchard (1780-1837)" Problem Image:Juan Martin Pueyrredon.jpg Public domain tag is deprecated {{PD}} Please check copyright status, confirm if {{PD-art}} applies, which, in U.S., allows public domain availability under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp so long as the derived work exhibits no original aspects of its own. (in my opinion, it exhibits no original aspects). Problem Image:Bouchard letter of marque.jpg tagged with {{PD-old}}, but the image is clearly in color, clearly not produced by 100 year old photographic processes, Uploader Lordkinbote possibly thinks the copyright matter concerns the letter, which is over 100 years old, and is not aware that the photograph of the letter is a derivative work and has its own copyright status. US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that: To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. so the reviewer is in error and the image has no copyright protection. See Derivative work. There is no information presented in this link. Suggest investigating {{PD-art}}, which, in U.S., allows public domain availability under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp so long as the derived work exhibits no original aspects of its own. (in my opinion, it exhibits no original aspects) Good Image:Straat van soenda.jpg {{GFDL}} Good Image:Fort Santiago Gate.jpg {{PD-self}} Good Image:Kamehamehaportrait.jpg {{PD-art}} Good Image:South Monterey Bay.jpg {{GDFL-with-disclaimers}} Good Image:Mission San Juan Capistrano 4-5-05 100 6588.JPG {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} Good Image:Flag of the Federal Republic of Central America.svg {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} Good Image:Flag of Nicaragua.svg {{PD-ineligible}} Good Image:Flag_of_Honduras.svg {{PD-ineligible}} Good Image:Flag of El Salvador.svg {{PD-self}} Good Image:Flag of Argentina.svg {{PD-ineligible}} Good Image:Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.jpg {{Template:PD-old}} Good Image:Flag of Peru (1821 - 1822).svg {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} Note that many of the images fail to specify their source, so copyright status cannot therefore be verified.
	7. Overall	Fail I'm sorry, I know you and your colleagues have put a great deal of work in this. Normally I put articles on hold, but this article has scope, coverage and completeness issues; there is more work that needs to be done. By their nature, Start class articles are incomplete. Before bringing it up to GA nomination again, consider executing the following program: Recommendation Bring coverage of subject matter at least up to B class, with "usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article." Use William Brown as a model. Apply to the Biography Project team to have an editor with an independent outlook reassess the article. When all of the work to bring the article up to a B class has been completed. Request a peer review. Tell your colleagues that you are seeking GA, perhaps eventually FA status, and that a previous GA reviewer felt that there were completeness issues. Recommendation Consider developing the voyage of La Argentina as a separate article. Much of the material in this article readily supports that scope, in terms of emphasis on dates, places and events. The Bouchard biography gets a summary version, with emphasis shifted to Bouchard, rather than a chronology of events. Recommendation Align the lead section so that it accurately recaps the article. Eliminate the hyperbole of the present version. Recommendation Recruit native English speaking editors with not quite your point of view to help with Point of view self-policing. These recruits can help with spelling, grammar, and idiomatic usage Recommendation Adopt an inline reference scheme; consider using citation templates. In introducing new material, you will require additional references. My experience with 40 - 60 KB articles runs to thirty separate reference works, with perhaps fifty to eighty citations in them. When it comes to quotes or statements that could be challenged, you need to be able to direct readers to specific page numbers so they see where you've gotten your information. Recommendation Please do not submit to Good Article Review an article with as many spelling and grammatical errors as this article had. It established an immediate poor impression in my mind. Before nominating any article to a GA or FA queue: Find an independent editor to copyedit the prose. The editor should not have worked on the article much so as to be able to look at the material with a fresh eye. Dry run the article by following the What is a good article? checklist with a thoroughness I have tried to strive for here. Recall the instructions on how to nominate a page at WP:GAC: "If you believe an article to be good according to the 'Good Article' criteria:" That means you should really believe a good article is a good article before submitting. Do not trivialize your self evaluation. My evaluation of this article ran over the course of several days. You should be at least an afternoon at your own review. Look at the talk pages of regular GA reviewers, such as Epbr123; many have additional checklists of items they deem important. If you feel that I have dealt with this article harshly or unfairly, please request a review with the Good Article Review team. Thank you for introducing me to Hippolyte de Bouchard. — Gosgood 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)