Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Indiana/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [1].

History of Indiana edit

Nominator(s): Charles Edward

It has been several months, and alot of improvements, since the previous nomination. I think it is getting pretty good myself, and it should be able to pass. If not then it will benefit from some constructive criticisms. I am one of the primary editors, and the nominator. Charles Edward 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "European people" needs to be dabbed. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination statement sounds like this is intended to be more of a peer review, than an FAC. Have you considered taking it to PR, where you can get some comments to make sure the article is ready, rather than "getting pretty close"? Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have done two peer reviews. I truelly believe it is near FA status, and I would work very hard to try and resolve any issues that are found before the review period closes. I have passed more than a dozen GA reviews, and am fairly good at working on a deadline. I have fixed the dab. Charles Edward 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Oppose Comments Looking at the previous FAC, one of the primary issues was its prose. You have worked diligently by yourself on this article, and it shows. However, you have worked on this article enough that you are too close to the text, as these examples show:

  • I suggest asking one of the copy-editors from WP:PRV to assist you.
  • "Following the retreat of the last glacial period," Periods don't "retreat", ice sheets do.
  • "Maximum extent of western Siberian glaciation was approximately 18,000 to 17,000 BP and thus later than in Europe (22,000–18,000 BP)." Needs a The at the beginning.
  • "The Adena culture is noted for domesticating some plants and for using pottery—large cultural advances over the Clovis culture." "some" is vague.
  • "One of the new developments—which has yet to be explained—is the start of masonry in the form of large, stone forts, many of which overlook the Ohio River." "is"-->was, this happened in the past.
  • "The Ohio River Valley was very heavily populated by the Mississippians from about 1100 to 1450."
  • "Their disappearance in Indiana occurred about two-hundred years"—Should not be hyphenated.
  • "These herds not only became important to civilizations in southern Indiana, but also wore a well-established Buffalo Trace that would later be used by pioneers moving west." What does "wore" mean in this context?
  • "This brought on the wrath of the Iroquois who destroyed a French outpost in Indiana in retaliation." "wrath" seems a bit POV, anyway "brought on the" would be better as "incurred".
  • "The first Europeans entered Indiana in the 1670s and added the region to New France." What nationality Europeans?
    • French. It is also noted in the next section when it goes into detail saying French traders from Canada. Do you think I need to duplicate that information, or move it up somehow? Charles Edward 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only one permanent European settlement, Vincennes, was established in Indiana during European rule, but the territory was inhabited by numerous native tribes."
  • "Prior to the Civil war" Use Before, it's simpler.
  • "In 1988, Senator Dan Quayle was elected Vice-President under George H. W. Bush. He was the 5th Vice-President from Indiana, and served one term.[191] Central Indiana was struck by a major flood in 2008 leading to widespread damage and the evacuations of hundreds of thousands of residents, making it the costliest disaster in the history of the state with early damage estimates topping $1 billion (USD)." Two unrelated ideas in one paragraph.
  • Overlinking of terms like American Revolutionary War.
    • That was just an example, there are more, such as Ohio River. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cleaned out alot of the overlinking today, but there may still be a few lurking in there. I will go over once more. Charles Edward 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although these forts were garrisoned by men sent from New France, there was no official attempted to form permanent settlements in Indiana." Wrong tense. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You fixed something, but I was saying that "attempted"-->attempt. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected all but two points, which I have commented above. I have asked a couple editors on that list for copy edit assistance in the past, but they appear to have been busy with other things. It's a big wiki. :) Charles Edward 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 69 (Indiana History Chapter two) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 157 (Cindy Aisen Fox) first needs a publisher, second the author's last name should be first to match the others.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as IMS, etc. in the references.
  • There seems to be some confusion about the difference between Publisher and Work in the {{cite web}} template. Some places you have it correct (like ref 105 - the US Census) but others you have it off. The publisher is the entity that published the information, not the name of the website. So for ref 142 (Eli Lily) the publisher is the same as the author, and the WORK is lily.com. Current ref 144, the publisher is the Gary Library, the WORK is the website.
  • In your book listing, either list the publication location or don't, but you need to be consistent (if it's unknown, you would put unknown) and put the location in a consistent place in the listings also.
  • I note that the Woolen book is a reprint of a work originally published in 1883. You need to note any such works, when they were originally published as well as the reprint publication date.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple questions. Woollen is a reprint, but also includes commentary by the author and additional information not in the original work, so it is m ore of a revision than a reprint. Does that matter? I have added locations for each of the books it is listed for, that I have. The rest I put as unknown. Please let me know if I did it correctly. I am going to try and go over the publisher/work info, but that will take a bit. i have addressed everything else, I think. Thanks Charles Edward 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Woolen, it depends on if he revised the whole work or if he just appended information. How you list the work depends on how he revised it, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of the points mentioned. Are there any others?

Comments Here are two really minor concerns:

  • In the lead: Indiana was inhabited by migratory tribes of Native Americans possibly as early as 8000 BCE. I don't think the possibly needs to be there, since "as early as" has the same effect.
  • In Early civilizations: Following the end of the last last glacial period, Indiana was dominated by spruce and pine forests, and was home to animals such as mastodon, caribou, and saber-toothed cat. Should that be cats? I really wasn't sure about the grammar of that, as maybe the plural is cat for them? I made most minor grammar fixes I came across myself but that one I may be wrong about. --Banime (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all of the above concerns, except for the one about finding a copy editor for assistance.. Is there anything else in this article that is not up to FA standards which need improvement? Charles Edward 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments — I'm working on copy editing the article. We'll see how it goes, but there's a few questions that popped up as I read. You alternate the terms tribe and nation in regards to the Indians in the area -- is there a difference? You mentioned a "Greenville" as the site of a Miami claim to Indiana in the first note. Is that Greenville, Indiana, or another location? JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greenville, Ohio - location of the signing of the treaty of Greenville. The Miami can be considered a nation, and are often called than in books. The Wea, Piankeshaw, Kickapoo, are also Miami tribes, but not part of the Miami nation. Make sense? The way I understand it, they were independent Miami tribes. The Miami were by far largest of the tribes in Indiana. The Lenape and Shawneee were not even a quarter the size of the Miami, and were more like guests linving in the Miami territory. The Pottowatomie were up in the northernmost parts of the state, and the majority of their tribe was in Michigan. As I understand, there were numerous independent tribes of Pottowatomie, and not one overall larger nation. Mingusboodle knows alot more about that than me, I beleive. I will ask him to drop a note here in case he doesn't see the question. :)
There really is no difference between the terms "tribe" and "nation" in this article. They're used alternately to avoid repetative use, but I can't find a consensus on which term is more correct. See Native American name controversy - our approach has been to use both terms since different people hold different preferences.
As to the relationships... The Wea, Piankeshaw, and various other tribes are all very closely tied with the Miami_tribe Miami, historically. They spoke the same Algonquin language, had the same customs, and could move freely between villages even though they were separate. Today, "Miami" refers to the official Miami tribe, but in historical context it can refer to all the related tribes. It's confusing, but we didn't invent the terms, we just use them. The Kickapoo were another Algonquin people but had a unique language. The Pottowatomie, Shawnee, and Lenape were unrelated peoples, but we occasionally find them in confederation with the Miami. Mingusboodle (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Thank you very much for your copy edit efforts! That is where we are most lacking I think. Charles Edward 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've also been working on copyeditting the article. However, I came across this sentence, which I changed to : Following the Civil War, Indiana remained politically important as it became a critical swing state in U.S. Presidential elections, and helped to decide control of the presidency for three decades. Originally it said it decided the presidency. If I was wrong in changing it to "help to decide" then please let me know and change it back, but I couldn't find in any sources where the state alone decided the presidency (due to electoral votes or whatever). --Banime (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in the Founding section: Pennington was quoted as saying "Let us be on our guard when our convention men are chosen that they be men opposed to slavery". That has no citation and needs one as its a quote. Finally, in the High education section: Indiana was the first state to have state funded public schools. Is there a citation for this as well? --Banime (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After rereading through this article, I believe all of the concerns that have been raised by both myself and other editors have been met and the FA Criteria are now met. I also made a lot of copyedits while reading through it and, along with JKBrooks85's copyeditting help, believe the article is well-written and I am going to support. --Banime (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've already made some uncontroversial edits to thje article. First, should we really use the CE/BCE dating system? It was only created to be politically correct, but it's still based on the birth of Christ. I'd prefer AD/BC. More important, there is an image of the Constitution Elm yet there is no mention of the tree in the artticle. Either this needs to be addressed or the image replaced. Also, there is nothing wrong with only using book sources, but it would be nice for the reader to include some websources and external links (Historical Society, etc). I could help with this. Thanks for the great work Charles!!! This article was FA quality months ago; this is only the finishing touches. Reywas92Talk 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books usually has a decent amount of books online, some with good previews that let you search pages within the book. Try looking through that to give people better chance to check sources themselves. --Banime (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with using either date format. CE/BCE dates to the middle ages, and oringally meant Before and After Christian Era. It is fairly commonly used among modern scholarly histories. We can change it though! There was text about the Elm at one point... Must have been copy edited out somewhere along the way, (Article is getting very long) I will add it back in. In regards to online sources, there are quite a few on the Indiana Historical Burueau, Indiana Historical Society, and Indiana Center for History websites. Alot of it is just not very detailed. Feel free to link to any of it you think appropriate. And it was not all me! Mingusboodle has made excellent contributions are wrote most of the early history. Thanks! Charles Edward 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit Checking the progress of the copy-editors after nominator request and because of natural curiosity (random sample of the Mississippians section):

  • "It was also during this period that American Bison began a periodic east-west trek" I think "east-west" should have an en dash.
  • "For unknown reasons, the Hopewell culture went into decline sometime around 400"
  • "Mississippian society was highly developed, with the largest Mississippian city containing as many as thirty thousand inhabitants." Has the ungainly with + -ing structure.
  • "present day Evansville" present day should be hyphenated.
  • "Mississippian houses were generally square" "square" what?
  • "Fifteenth Century" Why is this capitalized?
  • "The Mississippians were agrarian and were the first to grow maize in the region." Why the repetition of "were"? How about: "The agrarian Mississippians were the first to grow maize in the region." Or something along those lines.
  • "The Mississippians disappeared in the middle of the Fifteenth Century for reasons that remain unclear. Their disappearance occurred about two hundred years befothe Europeans first entered what would become modern Indiana."-->For reasons that remain unclear, the Mississippians disappeared in the middle of the Fifteenth Century, about two hundred years before the Europeans first entered what would become modern Indiana.

I really shouldn't be finding this many problems in three (really 2 and a half) relatively short paragraphs. As of now, I am leaning oppose Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the entire article? Or just those sections. I believe overall the article well written. But I am not sure it is Professional or Brilliant. I have asked several noted copy editors for some assistance, but none has been forthcoming yet. I am certain that this is the only thing that is lacking in this article. I will be out of town for the next several days.. By then this FAC will probably closed. If anyone can help see it through the next few days it would be appreciated. :) Charles Edward 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get a night's sleep and I'll see if I can work my penguin magic on the article.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)--Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Indiana/archive2&oldid=1216956117"