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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 21:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This seems like an interesting article. My approach is to read through the article and address any issues by section... and make minor edits (commas, links, etc.) that can be changed if you don't agree. And, then assess the GA criteria.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, CaroleHenson! I appreciate you taking the time. I'll respond to your comments below.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

• Looks good. I may come back to this section after finishing the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any major comments. It's not clearly stated that Felipe is his cousin. That might be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a cropped version of Carlos to see him better. See what you think.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, the cropped version is much better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool, I made the change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background and succession

• added a comma so that which scholars have parsed... can stay where it is. (i.e., the "which" doesn't refer to the informants, but to the account of the kings). Other minor edits include links and correction of a tense issue, all of which are here
• I am a very visual person and was a bit confused about the relationships, so I created three examples of family trees, in the event you may be interested in one of them on this page from ((Tree chart)). Zero pressure, it was fun to do and learn how to do it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great, and very helpful! I'd make two suggestions if possible: (1) a bracket covering the first king (King/Brother), "sister", and Senquene, to show that they were siblings; and (2) a broken line connecting "Daughter" to Felipe to show they were divorced along with a fuller line connecting her to Carlos II to show they were married after she was divorced from Felipe. What do you think?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! I will work on the broken line. I don't quite get what you mean by adding a bracket, if it's in or outside the boxes. Feel free to make the other changes and as I said, I will work on the broken line, but you may want to tweak that as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused about the timing of "contact with the Spanish" and when they met "shipwreck survivor Hernando de Escalante Fontaneda". Is it the same time? Or, was their other contact before the shipwreck survivor was known to the Calusa?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the following section that contact with the Spanish was made in 1565, but it sounds like part of that reason was to find shipwreck victims living among the Calusa. If the victims were there before 1565, wouldn't initial contact be earlier than 1565?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fontaneda lived among the Calusa from about 1549 to 1566 and he was clear others were there during and before that time. It's thought he was rescued by Menendez' mission. Menendez was not the first European to contact the Calusa. I've added a note about when Fontaneda was there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingship

• When did shipwreck victims meet the Calusa people - as in Menéndez' primary goal in the voyage was to secure the release of Spanish shipwreck survivors living among the Calusa, including his son Juan.[14]. It sounds like it was before September 1565. See the above question re: contact with the Spanish.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Survivors were held by the Calusa for many years. As per above I've added the dates for when Fontaneda was in Florida.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death and aftermath

• In the first sentence, I don't think the relationship took a violent turn, as just adds to confusion - which relationship? etc. It reads a little clearer without it.
• I added a comma here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• What does "and note" mean in The Calusa succession is charted in Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:193–194; Lewis 1978:32–33; Marquardt 1987:104-106; Widmer 1988:6; and McGoun 1993:12–16 and note.? Is it on another page?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, part of the information is in a footnote on another page. I don't like to just give the page number as it's difficult to find on the page without knowing what page it's connected to. But whatever you think is best.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should either provide the page or leave "and note" off. Are you meaning that the note carries over to the next page? In which case, you could just increase the page number by one?

I am not going to lose sleep over this, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

Comments

There are no major issues preventing this article passing as a GA article. It would be helpful to clear up the timing of the shipwreck victims, which seems to be before September 1565. There are a few wording items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got everything, let me know if it still needs to be clearer. The only disagreement I have with any of your changes and suggestions is the use of the word "tribe". I try to avoid that at is can have incorrect implications. I switched it to "peoples". Thanks so much for taking the time to review this, and let me know if there's anything else!Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good! I will take a look.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent job, Cuchullain, the article has passed and was the easiest GA article I have worked on. Thanks so much for it. I don't know if you noticed, but I also started San Antón de Carlos from the red link on this page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]