Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Maritime fur trade/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues have been addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead is quite short and doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article. The article body is quite long and detailed: I think information can be summarised more effectively or spun out into other articles. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Presumably the reason it has the insanely large byte size of 153K is the antiquated and long-winded referencing system used. That should be changed. The text is not all that long. As complained of higher up (years ago), the title is misleadingly broad. Prseumably all the original editors have left, so I doubt there's much chance of saving this. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the editor who made this article originally. I'm still around but haven't been very active for years now. Over the years other editors have added and changed things a bit, mostly in the lead and the "Historical overview" section (which had been part of the lead for a long time but has also been added to and changed quite a bit from what it was). I think most of the article after the lead and "Historical overview" is close to what it has been all along, though I see some bits here and there that were added, sometimes without a source. Still, I know there are a lot of issues. Anyway, just wanted to say I am still around, and still into the topic, but not sure how much time I can put into it these days, so am reluctant to commit to very much (in fact I'm at work right now and have to run!). If it loses "good" status, oh well. Maybe I can at least work on changing the citations to a less antiquated system (I have a lot of the books cited that are not online). But what is the preferred citation system these days? Is it the one using the {{sfn}} template? I will watch this page and do what I can! Pfly (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Pfly: Regarding your questions about citations: editors have their preference, but I recommend using citation templates to help with formatting. Z1720 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! Wouldn't that be just as "long-winded" in terms of byte count as the "cite book", "cite web", etc, method it uses now? Pfly (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Pfly: I'm concerned that the article is over 10,000 words, at which poing WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out and summarising prose more effectively. I don't use byte count to determine the length of an article when I express this concern. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: Okay, well I'm at a loss as to what part or parts could be split out into their own articles without making it worse and harder to understand. It's a complex highly interconnected bit of history. What part do you propose be split off?

Also, WP:TOOBIG says over 9,000 words "probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify [being over 9,000]", and that over 15,000 "almost certainly should be". It appears to be just over 10,000 now. In the past when the length of this article came up it was agreed that the topic's interconnected complexity does justify the length. You were unconvinced by these older comments about length, it seems. But just saying WP:TOOBIG leaves me not knowing what to do. I'm happy to do what I can, but it isn't clear how to proceed. Could you be more specific about what you want done? Especially what part you propose spinning out.

The text should be cleaned up and trimmed somewhat, to be sure. That's something I can do. I could probably get it back under or near 9,000 words. But I hesitate to do much if the page is going to be split into multiple articles. Finally, my comments and question about citations and byte length were a response to Johnbod's comments about the system used being "antiquated and long-winded" and mentioning the byte count. Your comments imply that isn't actually all that important. So I don't know what to do there either.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just cannot see how to split it up without making it worse. And I don't know if the citation system actually is a problem or not. It would help if you could be more specific about what you'd like done. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Pfly: I can't speak for other editors, but I focus on word count because 3b of WP:GA? focuses on summary style and article size. If the word count is reduced, the byte count will inevitably be reduced, too. I would suggest spinning out regardless of how the prose is cleaned up: I would rather spin out first then tackle the prose rather than the other way around. When articles are this long, I recommend spinning out the longest sections first, and summarising the information in this article in 2-4 paragraphs, which will be the length of the lead of the spun-out article. For example, if "Origins" was spun out into Origins of the Maritime fur trade, then have the subheadings removed and reduce it to 4 paragraphs. I also think "Historical context" should be merged with "Origins" as I think they are related. "Diversification and transformation" can also be spun out, maybe into Maritime fur trade in the nineteenth century or something similar. If readers want to know more information about a specific time period, they can go to the corresponding article. Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

There weren't actually as many issues as it seemed. The "Historical overview" section was a mess, mostly because of one IP editor who appears to not have known how to cite sources. Also "Overview" sections are almost never necessary as they are either redundant to the lead or redundant to the body sections they cover. The lead was certainly too long from the very first revision of the article, but that should have been a cause to shorten it, not just move it into another poorly-defined section. In any case, I ce'd the historical overview section, made the reference format halfway decent, moved it to the lead, and just like that, all the problems here are solved except for three uncited statements, two in "Significance" and one in "Russian-American Company". @Pfly: If these uncited statements can be resolved, the article, which is down to 9300 words, can keep its GA status. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chicdat Thank you, looking much better! I'll resolve uncited things and see what else might benefit from tweaks when I get some solid time, hopefully later this week. Pfly (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Z1720: What is your evaluation of this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Concerns seem resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)