# Talk:W. R. van Hoëvell

This review is transcluded from Talk:W. R. van Hoëvell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing ... expect comments tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, there are a fair number of times when the prose does not seem to follow standard English usages.  Is this a translation?  Either way, the prose needs some work before I could pass it.  Oddities include the use of "mainland" for the Netherlands, possibly you mean "homeland" or "mother country", the lower case baroness, I can go on.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Wehwalt, that's me, translating horribly from stylistically old, old sources. Feel free to take a blunt axe to it. I'll get on it as well--but not right now since the kids are coming home. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you improve it?  I am terribly short on time.  I have no problem with leaving it open for a while if you need time?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't copyedit it, but I will give you a list of problems I see, this weekend.  I will not hold the time against you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I made some progress, I think. I've never written about nobility: "baron van Hoevell" requires a capital B, then? But yes, do go on--just be gentle. ;) Drmies (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I am always (well, mostly) gentle, certainly with other people's work!)  Just because I hang out at FAC!  Yes, Baron should be capitalized if it is part of a formal title preceding a name.  I'll give you a few more during the course of the day.
I'm sorry, I've been delayed with this review and will not be able to deal with it until next week.  I can withdraw as reviewer or you can wait for me, as you please.  The prose is going to need work, don't just wait for me to give specific examples.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Dana Boomer
OK, Drmies has asked me to take over the review, as Wehwalt is short on time, and Wehwalt has agree on his talk page. I'm working through the article right now, and here are some initial thoughts:

Per WP:LEAD articles of this size should generally have a lead of two to three paragraphs.
References not in English should have their language indicated in the Bibliography section.
Translations are provided for all of his publications except for the third one. Is this on purpose?
Those are obviously minor. I have read through the article, as well as looking at the history, and think that the prose is improved over where it was when the nomination was initiated. I'll take a further look through tonight and make comments on prose, etc. The article looks fairly solid at this point, just in need of some tweaking to get it the last bit of the way to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in: language icons are added, and the title was translated. I do not really know what to do with the lead--I'm not sure what to add, and it's a bit too thin right now to split it in half. Suggestions would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


### Further comments:
I made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert any you don't like or bring them here for discussion.
Youth, "(Deventer, 21 April 1778)" and "(Haarlem, 31 August 1787)" - I'm assuming these are the birth places and dates of his parents, but this isn't totally clear from the context. Also, if we are giving their birth places and dates, why not their death locations and dates?
Yes they are (found here, and no, we don't have them. I should have put "born" in there--I see now how just a single date is confusing. Should I go look for their death locations and dates, or just leave it (with the addition of "born"), or take it out altogether?
If you can find the death dates/locations, then add them in, but I think the birth dates/locations are better than nothing, so don't take them out if you can't find the death information.
Youth, "He returned from the war gravely ill," Do we know what illness he had contracted?
No--this is all the source said.
Ministry, "where he led a Malay and Dutch-speaking congregation." Did he speak Malay? Where/when/how did he learn it?
I would guess he did, haha--OR... He must have had a knack for languages since he published linguistic articles, but I don't know if Malay was a standard part of the curriculum for anyone in the Netherlands, at least not in those days. Then again, but this is also a guess, many of the locals there were bilingual since they had to be able to communicate with their overlords.
1848 Protest, "of the European legal class". I don't understand this? Were they legally European? Were they European legal scholars? Were they lawyers who worked only with European law?
Yeah, that was added by another editor. I can't phrase it better, though I realize it sounds awkward. We're dealing with a racist/racialist class system, and being "European" was a legal status. How could you rephrase that? I'll ask the other editor to weigh in here as well.
Simpler solution: struck the phrase. There really is no need to distinguish citizens here, esp. not since (apparently) they were pretty much all involved with the uprising.
1848 Protest, "Partly inspired by the..." The two portions of this sentence (before and after the semi-colon) don't appear to mesh. The first part is talking about the actions of a class of citizens, the second about the actions of van Hoevell individually. Perhaps splitting the two and inserting a narrative bridge of some sort between them would help.
Will check.
1848 Protest, "many of the Dutch locals, both white settlers and the Eurasians known as Indo-Europeans, could not or did not want to send their children back to the Netherlands. As it happened, the measure discriminated against Dutch and mixed Eurasian families alike," To me, these two partial sentences are saying essentially the same thing - that both groups were discriminated against. Reducing repetition is a good thing...
Will check (this also is not entirely my writing.)
Rephrased after another look at the reference, and tweaked the citation. Please see if you like it better.
1848 Protest - The first paragraph of this section seems to jump around quite a bit, as we go from the group of citizens to van Hoevell's meeting, back to the group of citizen's complaints, back to van Hoevell's meeting. Perhaps some rearranging is in order?
Will check.
I've rephrased the entire section. Please have another look.
1848 Protest, "In the course of those days van Hoëvell's influence grew:" The examples given after this don't show that his protest grew, they simply show that he became better organized. Did more people become aligned with his cause? Was he able to convince people in power that he was right? Those show influence.
I'll look at this again, but it's pretty much a direct quote, if I remember correctly. I'll check with the sources as well.
Done. Hope you like it better.
1848 Protest, "and that they did form a political threat". Errr...they did or didn't?
Ouch--my mistake in a recent rewrite, I think. Good call, thanks. 
1848 Protest, "Rochussen considered that the meeting in De Harmonie would be subversive". This feels very awkwardly worded, but I can't think of a better way to word it right now...
Yes, same here. Rochussen went back and forth a bit. I'll check the sources again.
Tweaked a bit, though perhaps not enough; added an "indigenous" note.
1848 Protest, "the ousting of van Hoëvell"  Was he ousted by the participants or the troops?
By the participants, growing increasingly rebellious. Will rephrase.
Resignation, "perhaps too important a figure" I think I understand what you mean (that he was becoming sort of a figurehead to the local population?), but this could probably be made more clear.
Sure.
Did a little bit.
Return to the Netherlands, ""The acceptance of his forced resignation was canceled"" I'm not seeing anything so powerful about this statement that it needs to be a quote - why not just reword and remove the quotes?
Sure.
Done.
Return to the Netherlands, "he announced in parliament...that the book had sent tremors through the country." It was necessary for a representative to announce this? (I guess it seems rather banal to me, although I could be missing something here...)
Well, the point here is to draw a connection between our subject and Multatuli--moreover, our subject's discussing a book in parliament is a big deal and lends credence to the book. Rhetorically, I guess the idea of announcing "the book sent tremors etc." is to actually send tremors, as a kind of performative speech act. I'll look at this again, and would appreciate any tweaks you have up your sleeve.
Tweaked it some. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, it looks better, and it does tie in well with his other work. I think it would be more exciting if you could say the announcement caused half the parliament to collapse in a faint, but maybe that's just me :)
That's it for now. Overall the article looks good, but feels a little disorganized, especially in the 1848 Protest section. Once the above (and my initial comments) are addressed I'll take another look through the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these helpful comments. I typed some quick responses and will get to work. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
And again. I have tried to incorporate your suggestions for all but the first three or so comments. I will try to expand the lead tonight or tomorrow. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a few more tweaks to your article - again, let me know if there's anything you don't like. I'm going to be taking one more look through the article, but it's looking in good shape for GA. Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've taken another look through the article and everything looks good for GA status to me. The 1848 Protest section especially looks much better. If you're happy with my edits, then I will go ahead and pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my prose: your edits improved the article and I'd like to keep you on retainer. I appreciate your stepping in--thanks again! Drmies (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and passed the article. I put him in the "Historical figures, other" category of the GA listings, but if you feel there's another section where he fits better please feel free to move him! Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again Dana! Drmies (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)