Wikipedia:Peer review/History of St. Louis, Missouri/archive1

History of St. Louis, Missouri edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate for GA and eventually FA. I have done extensive rewriting and expanding, and there are multiple series articles with more detailed information. My main concern that there has been only one single-volume full-length text in the last century on the history of the city, so perhaps I have relied on it too heavily (and other authors of more specific monographs also rely on it). Also, I would like feedback on prose and scope, and anything else you care to share that you notice. Thanks for your help, poroubalous (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. History of the Australian Capital Territory is a FA and may be a useful model.

Thanks for the model -- I have been looking at a few city histories as examples, but they were all pretty old (e.g. History of Miami). poroubalous (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple dab links that will need to be fixed

Fixed these. poroubalous (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section headers do not always follow WP:HEAD which says not to repeat the article name or parts of it unless absolutely needed. So "St. Louis in the American Revolution" could just be "In the American Revolution" or perhaps even "American Revolution"

Fixed this on several headers. poroubalous (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you want GA first, but at FAC language is the most difficult criteria for most articles to meet. One examples At the end of the 1800s, St. Louis was home to ragtime and blues composers, and at the start of the 1900s, it hosted the 1904 World's Fair and the 1904 Summer Olympics. 1800s is confusing - is it the century or the first decade? Try 19th century instead. I also think since years are given that "...and at the start of the 1900s, it hosted the 1904 World's Fair..." could be tightened to just "...and later hosted the 1904 World's Fair..."

Fixed this; the blues and ragtime people lived there in the early 20th century, so I just tightened the whole thing. poroubalous (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of "Exploration and Louisiana before 1762" needs some sort of time reference - when did the Mississippian culture (roughly) begin in the area?

Added date and citation. poroubalous (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers have confluences, not sites Explorer Louis Joliet and Jesuit priest Jacques Marquette traveled the Mississippi River in June 1673, going past the confluence of the future site of St. Louis to the mouth of the Arkansas River.[3]

Not sure why the prose was sloppy there; I rewrote the sentence and clarified what happened. poroubalous (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significane of 1762? This section never mentions that year and needs to

I rewrote the end of this section and the start of the next in an attempt to clarify this. poroubalous (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image with the caption "The first Catholic church in St. Louis" but no mention of the church in the sections near the image. If it is worth an image, I would at least mention it in the text, or at the very least put the year in the caption.

I added the date that's in the text to the caption and changed "chapel" to "church" in the sentences near the image to make this clearer. poroubalous (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks are best when useful to the average reader and when they help people understand the article better. I would link the Missouri River (and other major rivers), but am not sure that I would link things like Flag of Spain or Flag of France

Linked rivers, unlinked flags; will evaluate other links. poroubalous (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also make sure to provide context to the reader - you know a lot about St Louis and the area, so sometimes it is hard to realize readers from elsewhere in the world might not know basics about the area. As one example I would mention very early on that the Missouri River enters the Mississippi River a short distance north of what became St Louis. This could be done in conjunction with the Missouria tribe - mention they gave their name to the river which...
Makes no sense St. Louis after the Louisiana Purchase initially was governed by a territorial governor from the Indiana Territory, and its organizational law forbade the foreign slave trade and reduced the influence of St. Louis.[32] If it starts as "The Louisiana Purchase was initially governed..." that is much clearer.

I rewrote these sentences and linked to the district; hopefully made it better. poroubalous (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would mention slavery earlier - I know the Missouri Compromise is wikilinked, but non-US readers are not likely to know what it involved. The admission as a slave state is only mentioned two sections later.

I added information on it to the city founding and early history section and tweaked the MO compromise part for clarity. poroubalous (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comment - these points are typically one example of several, so please look for more cases and correct as needed (as was done with the headers, thanks)
Try to make sure useful information is presented where it does the most good, usually as early as possible. For example, I read As a result, Catholics in St. Louis no longer had a resident priest until the arrival of Louis William Valentine Dubourg.[47] and wondered when he arrived in St. Louis. I clicked on the link and looked at his article, then went back to this one. Two sentences later it says he arrived in 1818. I would move that to this sentence.

Fixed. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think specifics help - US Census data should be available for every decade after the Louisiana Purchase (starting in 1810). So instead of general sentences on population expansion like The population increase also stirred interest in statehood for Missouri, and in 1820, Congress passed the Missouri Compromise, authorizing the admission of Missouri as a slave state.[41] There should be some sort of data for increase in population from 1810 to 1820 (at least for the territory, and hopefully for St Louis itself).

I pulled the census data table from the article as it was a little long, but I am not opposed to reinsertion, or at the very least, more mention of specific population figures. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised Lewis and Clark are not mentioned except for a See also.

I noticed that now, and concur that they need more treatment -- LC deserve some more love in this article and I'll see what I can do. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headers are usuallly as telegraphic (concise) as possible - could it be "World War I and after" for example?

I agree that concise headers are good, but I feel like "and after" indicates something related to WWI, whereas the interbellum period is more inclusive of the 1920s and the 1930s. I'm open to a change on it though to make it more clear. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unemployment table in this section seems like it must have an error. Total unemployment in St Louis in 1933 is given as 30%, but the figures for both whites and blacks are higher (35% and 80%). Was there really a large enough third group with such a lower rate of unemployment that it lowered the city's rate below that of whites?

I am trying to track down accurate figures here; there is a problem. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also provide years for more things, like the start of Prohibition and WWII (Europeans think of it as starting in 1939, not 1941)
This is generally cited nicely throughout, but there are a few places where one or more sentences without ref(s) follow a ref. These will typically need refs too (especially for FAC). One example is The rise in automobile ownership and new highway construction enabled further suburbanization. The city reached its peak population at the 1950 census, and as suburban development increased, there was a steady decline in the city's population during the next several decades.

I cited the second part, still looking for causal information about suburban development. poroubalous (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the reliance on one source in the intor to this PR. I agree that could be a concern at GAN and especially FAC. One thing that might help is to use other sources where possible - so for things before the 20th century, couldn't multiple citations be used (to older sources as well as the most modern one)?
Similarly, there are a lot of sources listed under "Further reading" and it seems like they could be used more in this article. One example is the first on the Irish - there are 8 mentions of the Irish in the article, and it seems as if this source should useful in citing at least soem of those.

Did this for Van Ravenswaay and for Faherty; I will keep it up with a few others. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice one source is listed in both the References and the Further reading, which is a no no (Zimmer, Keith B. Caulaty List)

I checked this, and it's actually two separate sources (the references is for WWII, while the further reading is for WWI). poroubalous (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where more than one ref is identical, they should be combined with the use of the "ref name = " tag. So for example, there are identical refs to 23.^ Drumm (1931), 643. 24.^ Drumm (1931), 643. which should be combined. I would also look at combining small page ranges in other sources - could Primm pages 1-5 be one ref, for example?

I considered combining ref tags, but decided against it so that readers could see exactly where a statement was made; I did fix the 643 twice thing. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably other sources out there which may be useful - a history of the state of Missouri should have much of the broad material.

There are -- I'm requesting them through ILL and a few other places. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are nice.
Writing is pretty good - I think this owuld pass GA without too much trouble, but might have some issues at FAC (where a professional level of English is often the most difficult criterion for articles to meet).
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from /ƒETCH COMMS /

In the lede, does "Mound builders" have to have the "M" capitalized?

Hmm. I thought so, but in retrospect, I have no idea. I'll look into this issue. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does "Prohibition" have to be capitalized? I've seen it both ways, not sure which is more preferred, if there is one.

When it refers to the period of prohibiting alcohol in the US, it's capitalized. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ruhrfisch above, I think a mention of Lewis and Clark's expedition is warranted somewhere in the article.

I concur (see above). poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(slightly unrelated note: History of St. Louis, Missouri (1866–1904) and History of St. Louis, Missouri (1981–present) are missing the references for the books)
Maybe expand the "Suburbanization and population loss" a little—there were other causes behind the white flight, I'm sure.

Ruhrfisch noted this area needs greater citation; I'm in the process of looking at a source that goes into more detail on the issue. Good point. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added demographic information about 1960s population declines, but haven't found a lot that points to causation. Still working on this. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, racial divides, etc. could be elaborated on more. There's certainly been a lot of racial tension and controversy in St. Louis, e.g., housing complexes, workers during the arch's construction. Immigration in more recent years could also be discussed (e.g., most of St. Louis' Bosnian population, about 70,000 people, arrived in the 1990s and early 2000s—[1]).

I concur, and I've been mulling an "African Americans in St. Louis, Missouri" article for a while now, but I'm having issues with sources. Immigration should be addressed, too -- good source. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a lot of information out there for such an article (e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), but Borders is out of them (stupid liquidation sales) and I'm not sure my library has all of them, either. I'll see if I can dig anything up. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info about the Bosnian community and recent immigration in general. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed the article History of the Jews in St. Louis, Missouri, so something about the growth of the Jewish population in St. Louis. /ƒETCH COMMS / 15:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a good source for Jewish history, and the article you linked isn't well-sourced either. I'm going to hold off on adding a lot until I can track down good stuff. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pruitt–Igoe" has an endash, not a hyphen.

Fixed. poroubalous (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in more artistic and cultural history. For example, the Wainwright Building was one of the first skyscrapers every constructed, and the architecture of St. Louis, Missouri article probably provides more on architectural history. For beautification, projects like Citygarden could be mentioned; there's also very little discussion of Forest Park and its assorted museums/institutions; and no significant discussion of the development of universities/colleges in St. Louis. Sports history also deserves a bit more attention (the St. Louis Rams aren't mentioned), and I've yet to see the Fox Theatre or St. Louis Symphony Orchestra mentioned.

All valid points. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added Fox Theatre info and early SLU and WashU info; I have a source for SLSO history; I don't have a good source yet for Rams, but that won't be hard to get I think. The article already has info on the origins of the St. Louis Art Museum and the St. Louis Zoo in Forest Park, but needs to mention the St. Louis Science Center and Missouri History Museum. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very picky, I know, but if you're going to split the article into subarticles, you can fit more good stuff in! :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have is trying to keep it within WP:SIZERULE. I've had to cut and remove information several times into the subarticles, but I'll keep working at it. Thanks for the review! poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility, and this should probably be considered after you've finished up everything so you know how big the article actually ends up to be, is to re-order the sections by subject rather than time (e.g., start with early history, but then go on to cultural/art/architecture, religion, industrial, race, education, recent developments, etc.). But I do like the chronological ordering, too. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]