History of Indiana and Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 3: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
→World War II: add ref |
substing deleted template, Replaced: {{User:Nichalp/sg}} → <font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font> <font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font> (2) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkarchive}} |
|||
[[Image:Indiana state seal.png|thumb|right|The [[Seal of Indiana]] reflects the state's pioneer era]] |
|||
The '''history of Indiana''' is an examination of the history, social activity, and development of the inhabitants and institutions within the borders of modern [[Indiana]], a [[U.S. state]] in the [[Midwestern United States|Midwest]]. Indiana was inhabited by migratory tribes of [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|Native Americans]] possibly as early as 8000 BCE. These tribes succeeded one another in dominance for several thousand years. The region entered recorded history when the first [[European people|European]]s came to Indiana and claimed the territory for [[Kingdom of France]] during the 1670s. At the conclusion of the [[French and Indian War]] and one hundred years of French rule, the region came under the control of the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]]. British control was short-lived, as the region was transferred to the newly formed United States at the conclusion of the [[American Revolutionary War]] only twenty years later. |
|||
Refactored to archives on 19:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
At the time the United States took possession of the [[Northwest Territory]], there were only two permanent European settlements in the region that would later become Indiana. The [[United States Congress]] immediately set to work to develop the Northwest. In 1800, the [[Indiana Territory]] was established and steadily settled until it was [[List of U.S. states by date of statehood| admitted to the Union]] in 1816 as the nineteenth state. Following statehood, the new government set out on an ambitious plan to transform Indiana from a wilderness [[American frontier|frontier]] into a developed, well populated, and thriving state. The state's founders initiated a program that led to the construction of roads, [[canal]]s, [[railroad]]s, and state funded public schools. During the 1850s, the state's population grew to exceed one million and the ambitious program of the state founders was finally realized. |
|||
== No red links? == |
|||
Indiana became politically influential and played an important role in the affairs of the nation during the [[American Civil War]]. As the first western state to mobilize for the war, Indiana's soldiers were present in almost every engagement during the war. After the Civil War, Indiana remained important nationally as it became a critical [[swing state]] in U.S. Presidential elections, and decided control of the federal government for three decades. During the early 20th century, Indiana developed into a strong [[Rust Belt| manufacturing state]], then experienced setbacks during the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s. The state also saw many developments with the construction of [[Indianapolis Motor Speedway]], the takeoff of the auto industry in the state, substantial urban growth, and two major United States wars. Economic recovery began during [[World War II]] and the state continued to enjoy substantial growth. During the second half the of the 20th century, Indiana became a leader in the pharmaceutical industry due to the many innovations of companies like [[Eli Lilly and Company|Eli Lilly]]. |
|||
I wonder, shouldn't there be a (informal) criterion that featured article should contain no red links? I haven't noticed that some would have, until [[Caesar cipher]], which has red link to [[pattern word]]. [[User:Samohyl Jan|Samohyl Jan]] 18:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Early civilizations== |
|||
:There's an informal policy that they shouldn't have an excessive number. As far as prohibiting it entirely, that would be a terrible idea - the whole idea of red links is to advertise articles we are lacking -- prohibiting red links would simply encourage people not to link the terms. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 18:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Following the retreat of the [[Wisconsin_Glacier#Wisconsin_glaciation.2C_in_North_America|last glacial period]], Indiana was dominated by [[Spruce]] and [[pine]] forests, and was home to animals such as [[mastodon]], [[caribou]], and [[Saber-toothed cat]].<ref>Justice, p. 13</ref> Southern Indiana remained undamaged by glaciers, leaving plants and animals which could sustain human communities.<ref>Justice, p. 16</ref> Indiana's earliest known inhabitants were [[Paleo-Indians]]. Evidence exists that humans were in Indiana as early as the [[List of archaeological periods (North America)|Archaic stage]] (8000–6000 BCE).<ref>Barnhart, pp. 19–25</ref> Hunting camps of the nomadic [[Clovis culture]] have been found in Indiana.<ref>Justice, p. 12</ref> Carbon dating of artifacts found in [[Wyandotte Caves]] shows that humans mined flint there as early 2000 BCE.<ref name = j56>Justice, p. 56</ref> These nomads may have enjoyed the large supply of [[Mussel|freshwater mussels]] in Indiana's streams, and could have started the [[Shell_mound#Shell_middens|shell mounds]] found throughout southern Indiana.<ref name = j56/> |
|||
:I concur strongly with Raul. Red links are what ultimately ecourage growth of the wiki (although I go to some length to eliminate them on the articles I work on - but by the expedient of creating content, rather than declining to link). That said, it is also true that too many red links tells me that an article exists in something of a vacuum, which is problematic for a featured article... A featured article should be sufficiently well linked to put it in an appropriate context. [[User:Fawcett5|Fawcett5]] 19:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki><newbie></nowiki>Me too!<nowiki></newbie></nowiki>. I don't think red links should be eliminated from FACs; rather, we should encourage editors to create articles (or at least good stubs) that fill in the necessary background information for articles. I've tried to follow this practice on articles that I create or edit (like the [[Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad]] page to eliminate a red link on my [[Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad]] FAC). The presence of red links should not be a deterrent to featured status. [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 19:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The Early [[Woodland period]] in Indiana is generally dated between 1000 BCE and 200 CE. The society of this time is known as the [[Adena culture]], named for the estate in Ohio where it was first discovered.<ref>Allison, p. iv</ref> The Adena culture is noted for domesticating some plants and for using pottery—large cultural advances over the Clovis culture. The Early Woodland period also saw the introduction of early burial mounds, and some of the oldest mounds in Indiana, including the oldest in [[Mounds State Park]], date from this era.<ref>Allison, p. v</ref> |
|||
:I think this would be a bad idea since it would discourage writing in topic areas that are now on the fringe of our coverage. A recent article I wrote is on the [[history of the Grand Canyon area]]. Other than not having a lead section, I’d say that it is a pretty darn good article. Yet it has many red links due to the fact that this article covers an area of history that is very poorly-covered in Wikipedia right now. Why should this article be denied FA status due to a lack of related articles? --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Humans of the Middle Woodland period, of the [[Hopewell culture| Hopewell culture]], may have been in Indiana as early as 200 BCE. The Hopewells were the first culture to create permanent settlements in Indiana. Around 1 CE, the Hopewells mastered [[agriculture]] and grew crops of sunflowers and squash, beginning their development into an agrarian civilization. Around 200 CE, the Hopewells began to construct mounds that are believed to have been used for ceremonial and [[burial mounds|burial]] purposes. Most modern knowledge of the Hopewells has come from the excavation of these mounds. The artifacts in the mounds show the Hopewells in Indiana were connected by trade to many other native tribes as far away as [[Central America]].<ref>Josephy, p. 108</ref> At sometime around 400 CE, the Hopewell culture went into decline for unknown reasons and disappeared completely by 500 CE.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nps.gov/hocu/|publisher=National Park Services|title=''Hopewell Culture''|accessdate=2008-05-22}}</ref> |
|||
:Same story with [[USS Missouri (BB-63)|USS ''Missouri'']]: Me and B have been overhauling the article alot in the past eight or so weeks, but the net result of that has been a sharp increase in red links; mostly their locations that I have never been to. The discussion on the 1980s modernization has also led to red links because of obsolete weaponry, yet in both cases I see no need to penalize the author for this. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 08:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The Late Woodland era is generally marked around 600 CE until the arrival of Europeans. This is considered a period of rapid cultural change. One of the new developments—which has yet to be explained—is the arrival of masons who built a number of large, stone forts, many of which overlook the Ohio River. Romantic legend credits these forts to the arrival of [[Welsh Indians]], centuries before [[Christopher Columbus]] arrived in the Caribbean.<ref>Allison, p. 9</ref> Most cultural development, however, is credited to the arrival of the Mississippians.<ref>Allison, p. vii</ref> |
|||
*I agree with you guys. It would be silly to not give something FA status just because linked articles don't exist. It would only promote people not linking to them, or linking, but writing substubs. Now if such a link is a subpage of an FA that summarizes something in a section, it's another thing... [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Mississippians=== |
|||
[[Image:Mississippian Village with two mound plazas.jpg|thumb|right|A typical [[Mississippian culture|Mississippian]] village.]] |
|||
*Something else to consider about featured articles and red ink: Since the featured article is right out on the main page people who generally wouldn't look for the article have accsess to it, and may have knowlage of the red inked link, which leads to an increase in the number of pages and a reduction in the red ink links. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Evidence suggests that after the collapse of the Hopewells, Indiana had a low population until the rise of the [[Mississippian culture]] around 900. The [[Ohio River Valley]] was very heavily populated by the Mississippians from about 1100 to 1450. The Mississippian settlements, like the Hopewells before them, were also known for their ceremonial [[Mound builder (people)|mounds]], many of the mounds are still visible. The Mississippian mounds were constructed on a grander scale than the mounds built by the Hopewells. The Mississippians were agrarian and were responsible for the domestication of [[maize]]. The [[bow and arrow]] and [[Copper Age|copper working]] were also perfected during the Mississippians' years of prevalence.<ref name = ihoa105>{{cite book|title=''The Indian Heritage of America''|author=Josephy, Alvin M. |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Books|year=1991|pages=pp. 105–109|isbn=0395573203}}</ref> |
|||
== References == |
|||
Mississippian society was highly developed, with cities being home to as many as thirty-thousand inhabitants. Mississippian cities were typically near rivers and included a large central mound, several smaller mounds, an open [[courtyard]], and the city was usually enclosed by walls. A major settlement known as [[Angel Mounds]] is east of present day [[Evansville, Indiana| Evansville]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.in.gov/ism/StateHistoricSites/AngelMounds/index.aspx |title=Angel Mounds State Park |accessdate=2008-05-17 |publisher=IN.gov|author=Indiana Department of Natural Resources}}</ref> Mississippian houses were generally square, with plastered walls and thatched roofs.<ref>Justice, p. 69</ref> The Mississippians disappeared in the mid-fifteenth century for reasons that remain unclear. Their disappearance in Indiana occurred about two-hundred years before the Europeans first entered what would become modern Indiana. Mississippian culture marked the high point of native development in Indiana.<ref name = ihoa105/> |
|||
What is the appropriate way to deal with references to other wikipedia content? [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] suggests not including them in a references section. Fair enough; the original references will be in other wikipedia articles, which we can follow links to see. But this raises the possibility of an article with no references section at all that is actually soundly referenced. The easiest way for that to happen is to write a monster article, full of detailed references, then have it split according to [[Wikipedia:Summary style]] so that everything in the article is then a summary of some other wikipedia article, which contains all the references. |
|||
It was also during this period that the [[American Bison]] began a periodic East-West trek through Indiana, crossing at the [[Falls of the Ohio]] and over the [[Wabash River]] near [[Vincennes, Indiana|Vincennes]].<ref>Justice, p. 75</ref> These herds not only became important to civilizations in Southern Indiana, but also wore a well-established [[Buffalo Trace (road)|Buffalo Trace]] that would later be used by pioneers moving West. |
|||
This hasn't happened yet, exactly, but I was editing [[carbon]] and removed the only entry under "References" because replaced the only place it was used with information from [[material properties of diamond]]. (Of course, [[carbon]] should have loads of references, but that's beside the point for now...) --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 04:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===European contact=== |
|||
:This is actually a pretty big deal, and one I also ran into (consequently, while working on [[diamond]] and its sub-articles) without knowing what to do. If [[material properties of diamond]] is well referenced, as it is, and I use a fact from that article in the main article [[diamond]], do I need to duplicate the reference? I've come to think that maybe we can use other Wikipedia articles as formal references, but only so long as those articles are well referenced themselves. (Does that mean we should list subarticles in the <nowiki>==References==</nowiki> section?) The obvious danger is that we create huge circular references where we only back things up with our own articles, which of course defeats the whole purpose of referencing in the first place. - [[User:Bantman|Bryan is Bantman]] 17:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Sometime before 1600, a major war broke out in eastern North America that later became known as the [[Beaver Wars]]. The five [[Iroquois]] tribes confederated to battle against their neighbors. The Iroquois were opposed by a confederation of primarily [[Algonquin]] tribes including the [[Shawnee]], [[Miami tribe|Miami]], [[Wea]], [[Pottawatomie]], and the [[Illinois tribe|Illinois]].<ref>Jennings, p. 18</ref> These tribes were significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The tribes were semi-nomadic, returned to the use of stone tools, and did not follow the large scale construction and agrarian ways of their Mississippian predecessors. The war continued for at least a century as the Iroquois' sought to dominate the fur trade, a goal they achieved for several decades. In the course of the war, the Iroquois drove their neighboring tribes to the south and west.<ref>Jennings, p. 126</ref><ref>Dunn, p. 53</ref> The war caused several tribes, including the Shawnee, to migrate into Indiana where they attempted to resettle in land belonging to the Miami. The Iroquois gained the upper hand after they were supplied with firearms by the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] in [[New Netherlands]] and later by the [[Kingdom of England|English]]. With their new found superior arms the Iroquois subjugated at least thirty other tribes and nearly destroyed others in northern Indiana.<ref>Dunn, p. 55</ref> |
|||
:That's a tricky point. There is precedent and instruction for referencing foreign language wikis (which I've followed on some of the ''xxxx in Rail Transport'' pages), but other than mentioning related articles in a ''See also'' section, I haven't seen any other guidelines on referencing existing articles. My thought is that if an article is used as a reference, it should be listed in the References section. We have a mechanism to link to specific versions of articles through the page history, so why not use it? Perhaps list wiki articles in a subsection of the References like <nowiki>=== Wikipedia references ===</nowiki> or somesuch, and list the article name as a link to the specific version that was referenced. [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 18:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
When the first Europeans entered Indiana, the region was in the final years of the conflict. The French attempted to trade with the Algonquian tribes in Indiana, including selling them firearms. This brought on the wrath of the Iroquois who destroyed a French outpost in Indiana in retaliation. Appalled by the Iroquois, the French continued to supply the western tribes with firearms and openly allied with the Algonquian tribes.<ref>Dunn, pp. 55–58</ref><ref>Jennings, p. 43</ref> A major battle, and a turning point in the conflict, occurred near modern [[South Bend, Indiana|South Bend]], where the Miami and their allies repulsed a large Iroquois force in an ambush.<ref>Thompson, pp. 38&ndash40</ref> With the firearms they received from the French the odds had evened, and the war eventually ended with the [[Great Peace of Montreal]] in 1701. Both of the Indian confederacies were left exhausted having suffered very heavy casualties and much of Ohio, Michigan and Indiana was left depopulated as many of the tribes had fled to the west.<ref>Jennings p. 238</ref> |
|||
::Surely the 'right' answer is that the copied fact should be checked again in the reference cited in the original article, just to make sure, and then the original reference is repeated in the article where the fact is copied. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The Indian Nations that are more commonly associated with Indiana, like the Miami and Pottawatomie, returned to Indiana in the late 17th century following the war.<ref>Barnhart, p. 52</ref><ref>Josephy, pp. 131–139</ref> Other tribes, like the [[lenape|Delaware]], were pushed westward by European colonists. The Miami invited the Delaware to settle on the [[White River (Indiana)|White River]] in about 1770.<ref>Carter, pp. 38, 55.</ref> <ref group = n>At the negotiations at Greenville, Chief [[Little Turtle]] of the Miami Tribe asserted a Miami claim to half of Ohio, all of Indiana, and eastern parts of Illinois, including present day Chicago.</ref> The [[Shawnee]] arrived even later.<ref>Barnhart, p. 52</ref> These four nations were later to be participants in the [[Sixty Years' War]], a struggle between Native Nations and White Nations for control of the [[Great Lakes]] region. The first known deaths of Europeans by Indians in Indiana occurred in 1752, when five French fur traders were attacked and killed by some [[Piankeshaw]] Indians near the [[Vermilion River (Wabash River tributary)|Vermillion River]].<ref>Allison, p. 271</ref> |
|||
I think ALoan is right. But it's true that (especially for print references) we should be more willing to trust well-referenced Wikipedia articles than random unsupported claims. What I mean is, I think it's okay, although not ideal, to simply plunder another wikipedia article for facts; ideally, one would go check the references. Only if this is done should the refs be added to the article's refs section. This will be more easily done if one records which wikipedia article the refs come from. What I've been doing with all my refs is putting an abbreviated specific reference in comments (like <nowiki><!--[[Material properties of diamond]]--> or <!--http://www.scuba-doc.com/HPNS.html-->) and then (if it's not a Wikipedia article) listing the detailed ref in the References section. --~~~~ |
|||
==Colonial rule== |
|||
The first Europeans entered Indiana in the 1670s and added the region to [[New France]]. The quickest route connecting the New France districts of [[Canada, New France|Canada]] and [[Louisiana (New France)|Louisiana]] ran through Indiana, and the [[Terre Haute]] highlands were once considered the border between the two districts.<ref>{{cite book|chapter=''The Road from Detroit to the Illinois'' 1774.|title= ''Michigan Pioneer and History Collections''|volume=10|pages= 248}} Available [http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives/miamis20/M74-77_1b.html online] at the [[Glenn Albert Black|Glenn A. Black]] Laboratory of Archeology website.</ref> This made the Indiana region a vital part of French holdings for communications and trade. This also made Indiana important for the [[Kingdom of Great Britain|British]] to control if they were to halt French expansion.<ref>Fowler, pp. 3,6</ref> Only one permanent European settlement, [[Vincennes, Indiana|Vincennes]], was established in Indiana during European rule, but the territory was inhabited by numerous native tribes.<ref>Fowler, p. 2</ref> |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
===France=== |
|||
==Other language Wikipedias== |
|||
[[Image:Natives guiding french explorers through indiana.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Native Americans guide French explorers through Indiana as depicted by [[Maurice Thompson]] in ''Stories of Indiana''.]] |
|||
Should it be a guideline that a Featured Article should attempt to include as many links as possible to other languages? I've been using aka's marvellous [http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ search tool] to add these to as many [[WP:FAC|Featured Article Candidates]] as possible, and if I have time I might start on some existing FAs. It only really works for proper names, so we couldn't make this a hard and fast rule - people can't be expected to translate an article title into [[Meta:Complete list of language Wikipedias available|93 different languages]] - but where it's easy to check what exists, I think this should be encouraged. --[[User:194.73.130.132|194.73.130.132]] 15:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I've tried to do this as far as possible. See the [[India]] page ~80 links. Its shouldn't be expected that the authors waste their effort in translating the pages. Having a simple english page on the other hand would help the SE cause and also those who may not understand the jargon on the FA page, but would like to read a good article. <font color="#0082B8">=[[user:Nichalp|Nichalp]] ([[User Talk:Nichalp|Talk]])=</font> 20:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
French fur traders from Canada were the first Europeans to enter Indiana.<ref>Fowler, p. 5</ref> The first European outpost within modern Indiana was Tassinong, a French trading post established in 1673 near the [[Kankakee River]].<ref group=n>Photo available at [http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=4640 Historical Marker Database]. Retrieved on May 13, 2008.</ref> French explorer [[René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle]] came to the area in 1679, claiming it for the [[King of France|King]] [[Louis XIV of France|Louis the XIV]] of France. La Salle came to explore a portage between the [[St. Joseph River (Lake Michigan)|St. Joseph]] and [[Kankakee River|Kankakee]] rivers,<ref>Allison, p. 17</ref> and Father Ribourde, who travelled with La Salle, marked trees along the way that would survive long enough to be photographed.<ref>Troyer, Byron</ref> In 1681, La Salle negotiated a treaty between the Illinois and Miami nations in common defense against the Iroquois.<ref>Allison, p. 16</ref> |
|||
==US music== |
|||
A further exploration of Indiana led to an important trade route being established using the [[Maumee River|Maumee]] and [[Wabash River|Wabash]] rivers to connect Canada and [[French Louisiana|Louisiana]]. The French established a series of forts and outposts in Indiana to defend against the westward expansion of the [[thirteen colonies|British colonies]] and to encourage trade with the native tribes. The tribes benefited from the trade with the French, and were able to procure metal tools, cooking utensils, and other utilitarian items in exchange for animal pelts. The French built [[Fort Miamis]] in the Miami town of [[Kekionga]] (modern [[Fort Wayne, Indiana]]). France assigned [[Jean Baptiste Bissot, Sieur de Vincennes]], as the first agent to the Miami at Kekionga.<ref>Barnhart, pp. 71–73</ref> |
|||
I am hoping on nominating [[music of the United States]] soon. Having recently used the [[Titan (moon)]] system of referencing, I'd like to get some input from the FAC crowd (since PR is inappropriate for this case). See the [[music of the United States#References|References section]], with quotes from the sources. I think this is very useful and interesting, but is making the references section very long. If the entire article is done like this, it will be way over 32k. Should I remove the quotes but otherwise keep the referencing the way it is? Or does page size not matter in this case? Do you like the sound sample download format (e.g. at [[Music of the United States#Native American music]])? Or does that seem to obtrusive? [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 17:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Nobody is going to ding the article on length if what is pushing it above 32K is extensive referencing. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In 1717, François-Marie Picoté de Belestre<ref group=n>The father of [[François-Marie Picoté de Belestre]]</ref> established the post of [[Ouiatenon]] (modern [[Lafayette, Indiana]]) to discourage the [[Wea]] from moving into the British sphere of influence.<ref>Barnhart, p. 72</ref> In 1732, [[François-Marie Bissot, Sieur de Vincennes]] established a similar post near the [[Piankeshaw]] in the [[Vincennes, Indiana|town]] that still bears his name. Although these forts were garrisoned by men sent from New France, there was no official attempted to form permanent settlements in Indiana. Vincennes was the only outpost to maintain a permanent European presence until the modern day.<ref>Fowler, p. 9</ref> |
|||
==Fictional Articles and Featured Article Status== |
|||
[[Jesuit]] priests accompanied many of the French soldiers into Indiana. In an attempt to convert the natives to [[Christianity]]. The Jesuits conducted [[missionary]] works, lived among the natives, and accompanied them on hunts and migrations. Gabriel Marest was teaching among the [[Kaskaskia]] as early as 1712. The missionaries came to have great influence among the natives and played an important role in keeping the native tribes allied with the French.<ref>Law, pp. 21–25</ref> |
|||
Is their a general rule for the status of fictional articles with regards to their eligability (or lack there of) of becoming featured articles? I cannot seem to find anything regarding the subject. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 08:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:First, define what you mean by 'Fictional Articles'. If you mean 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', then that article will be treated the same as any other. If you mean 'a fake article that is pulling the reader's leg', then that will be treated just like any other vandalism and be deleted. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 17:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The first European war to affect what would become Indiana began in 1689. [[King William's War]] had little impact on the region, but some of the native tribes took part in minor raiding near the British colonies. The second conflict to occur was [[Queen Anne's War]] and lasted from 1740 to 1748. Although no battles occurred in the region during the second conflict, the French convinced many of the regions Native American tribes to join in raids against the British [[thirteen colonies|colonies]]. The conclusion of Queen Anne's war saw French control of Canada compromised, and that would lead to Canada's fall to Britain in the next conflict.<ref>Fowler, p. 2–3</ref> |
|||
::I think he means fictional in the good (e.g., literay) sense, like with [[Foundation Series]] or [[Superman]] or whatnot. And yes, those articles are treated no differently. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 20:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
During the [[French and Indian War]], the British challenged the French control in the region again. Although no pitched battles occurred in Indiana, the native tribes still supported the French.<ref>Fowler, p. 192</ref> At the beginning of the war, the tribes sent large groups of warriors to support the French in resisting the British advance and to take part in raiding on the British colonies. The British initially had several setbacks in their attempt to campaign westward because of the native resistance, but they were eventually able to overcome the natives.<ref>Fowler, p. 236</ref> Using [[Fort Pitt]] as a forward base, [[Robert Rogers (soldier)|Robert Rogers]] drove deep into the frontier and captured [[Fort Detroit]]. Robert's Rangers moved south from Detroit and captured many of the key French outposts in Indiana including Fort Miamis and Fort Vincennes.<ref>Fowler, p. 241</ref> As the war progressed, the French lost control of Canada after the fall of [[Montreal]] and were no longer able to support the hinterland and much of the territory was captured by the British, including all of Indiana. The French were entirely forced out of Indiana by 1761.<ref>Fowler, p. 263</ref> Following the French expulsion, the native tribes under [[Chief Pontiac]] confederated in an attempt to rebel against the British, without French assistance. While Pontiac was besieging Fort Detroit other tribes in Indiana rose up against the British forcing them to surrender [[Fort Miamis]] and [[Fort Ouiatenon]].<ref>Fowler, p. 276</ref> In 1763, while Pontiac was still resisting the British, the French signed the [[Treaty of Paris (1763)|Treaty of Paris]] which gave control of all of Indiana to the British.<ref>Fowler, p. 309</ref> |
|||
I'm talking about 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', like the kinds of examples Raul654 named. The reason I brought I up is because some of the articles related to the Gundam Universe (which is an entirely fictional universe) have been refined enough to meet the needed criteria for featured article status, but the only featured articles I see are those that come from the actual real world. I know that fair use images do not qualify for featured picture status, but I was unclear on whether or not fictional articles were similarly disqualified. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 23:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Great Britain=== |
|||
== Recent condensing of the criteria == |
|||
When the British gained ownership of Indiana, the entire region was in the middle of [[Pontiac's Rebellion]]. Over the next year, British officials negotiated with the various tribes until [[Chief Pontiac]] had lost most of his allies. Finally on July 25, 1766 Pontiac made peace with British. As a concession to Pontiac, Great Britain issued a [[Royal Proclamation of 1763|proclamation]] that territory west of the [[Appalachian Mountains]] was to be reserved for Native Americans.<ref>Pocock, p. 256</ref> Despite the treaty, Pontiac was still considered a threat to the British, but after he was murdered on April 20, 1769, the region saw several years of peace.<ref>Fowler, pp. 284–285</ref> |
|||
I for one think the changes are great, and make the criteria simpler and more concise. However, now the section on images is gone and the only leftover part says you don't really need images. I think that is misleading since in practice every article that does not have an image is objected to multiple times. The only ones that make it through without one are conceptual articles where an actual image is difficult or impossible. I think the criteria should reflct some clarity around this issue. - [ this was [[User:Taxman]] ] 12:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
After establishing peace with the natives, many of the remote trading posts and forts were abandoned by the British. Fort Miamis was still maintained for several years because it was considered to be "of great importance", but even it was eventually abandoned.<ref>Barnhart, p. 133</ref> The Jesuit priests were expelled and no provisional government was established; the British hoped that the French residents would leave. Many did leave, but the British gradually became more accommodating to the French residents who remained and carried on the vital trade with the native Native Americans.<ref>Barnhart, p. 148</ref> |
|||
:I would even suggest that, as it's worded now, the paragraph on images should be bullet point 5. The lead for the list is "A featured article should", and the first four words of the images paragraph starts the same way. [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 12:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In 1768 a treaty was negotiated between the several of the British colonies and the [[Iroqois]]. The Iroquois sold their claim the northwest to the colonies as part of the treaty, and the company created to hold that claim was named the Indiana Land Company, the first recorded use of the word ''Indiana''. The claim was disputed by [[Virginia]], who had already laid claim to the land.<ref name = IHBNI>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/history/2686.htm|title=The naming of Indiana|publisher=IN.gov|author=Indiana Historical Bureau|accessdate=2008-09-29}}</ref> In 1773, the territory of Indiana was given to the [[Province of Quebec (1763-1791)|Province of Quebec]] to appease its [[French Canadian|French]] population. The [[Quebec Act]] was listed as one of the [[Intolerable Acts]] that the [[Thirteen Colonies]] cited as a reason for the outbreak of the [[American Revolutionary War]]. The thirteen colonies thought themselves entitled to the territory for their support during the war, rather than it being awarded to the enemy the colonies had been fighting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006592|title=Quebec Act|publisher=Encyclopedia of Canada|author=Nancy Brown Foulds|accessdate=2008-06-14}}</ref> |
|||
:Agreed - a good rewrite; I changed "may" to "should" contain images where appropriate, as it used to say, incidentally. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 12:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Although the United States gained official possession of the region following the [[American Revolutionary War|war]], British influence on its Native American allies remained strong in northern Indiana, especially around Fort Detroit. This waned considerably after the [[Northwest Indian War]] and the ratification of the [[Jay Treaty]], but the British were not fully expelled from the area until the conclusion of the [[War of 1812]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/14318.htm|title=John Jay’s Treaty, 1794–95|publisher=US Department of State|accessdate=2008-06-14}}</ref> |
|||
Thank you for your comments. I came across two conflicting sentences while editing: |
|||
===United States=== |
|||
#''A featured article should have images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate.'' |
|||
{{see also|Illinois Campaign}} |
|||
#''However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured.'' |
|||
[[Image:GRCM 01.jpg|thumb|250px|right|The [[George Rogers Clark National Historical Park]] marks the site of Fort Sackville in Vincennes.]] |
|||
I left things as they were to avoid controversy, and assumed that images were not a prerequsite for FA status. I would be happy to re-word the paragraph to reflect your comments. |
|||
If pictures were required, would it be okay if I removed the following sentence: |
|||
After the outbreak of the [[American Revolution]], [[George Rogers Clark]] was sent from [[Virginia colony| Virginia]] to enforce its claim to much of the land in the northwest.<ref>English, pp. 71–72</ref> In July 1778, Clark and about 175 men [[Illinois campaign|crossed the Ohio River]] and took control of [[Kaskaskia]], [[Vincennes, Indiana| Vincennes]], and several other villages in British territory. The occupation was accomplished without firing a shot because Clark carried letters from the French ambassador stating [[France in the American Revolutionary War|French support of the Americans]]. This made most of the French and Native American inhabitants unwilling to take up arms on behalf of the British.<ref>English, p. 208</ref> |
|||
''"however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the [[Main Page]] (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful."'' |
|||
[[User:Mrcleanup|=mrcleanup=]] 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The fort at Vincennes, renamed [[Fort Sackville]] by the British, had been abandoned years earlier and there was no garrison to defend the post. Captain [[Leonard Helm]] became the first American commandant at Vincennes. To counter Clark's advance, the British under Lieutenant Governor [[Henry Hamilton]] reoccupied Vincennes with a small force. In February 1779, Clark arrived at Vincennes in a surprise winter expedition and retook the town, capturing Hamilton in the process. This winter expedition secured most of southern Indiana for the United States.<ref>English, p. 234</ref> |
|||
:Not really conflicting, as "should" and "must" are not quite the same thing. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|Blarneyman]] 13:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:March to Vincennes.jpg|thumb|left|Clark's march to [[Vincennes, Indiana| Vincennes]], by F. C. Yohn]] |
|||
::Thank you for your comment. Where I come from, ''"should"'' has a meaning closer to ''"must"''. I remember reading somewhere on the internet that in the U.S., ''"should"'' has a meaning closer to ''"may"'' (if my memory serves me well). Your comment has made this clearer. [[User:Mrcleanup|=mrcleanup=]] 13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In 1780, emulating Clark's success at Vincennes, French officer [[Augustin de La Balme]] organized a militia force of French residents to capture Fort Detroit. While marching to Detroit, the force stopped to sack Kekionga. The delay proved fatal when the expedition met the warriors of the Miami tribe under Miami Chief [[Little Turtle]] along the [[Eel River (Indiana)|Eel River]], and the entire force was killed or captured. Clark again organized an assault on Fort Detroit in 1781, but it was aborted when Chief [[Joseph Brant]] captured a significant part of Clark's army at a battle known as [[Lochry's Defeat]], near present-day [[Aurora, Indiana]].<ref>English, pp. 71–72</ref> |
|||
:::I'm Irish, and my sense of it here is that "should" allows for the possiblilty of a "however" while "must" does not. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|Blarneyman]] 13:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Looks good. :) --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 01:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Other minor skirmishes occurred in Indiana, including the battle at [[Petit fort|Petit Fort]] in 1780.<ref>Allison, p. 49</ref> At the end of the war in 1783, Britain ceded the entire trans-Allegheny region to the United States, including Indiana, in the peace treaty negotiated in Paris.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, Article 2|url=http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml|publisher=[[University of Oklahoma]]|accessdate=2008-10-11}}</ref> |
|||
Whoa - this series of edits almost slipped by me. I only checked the diff for the last one, not realizing there were a bunch more. Anyway, from what I can see, it looks good. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 01:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Clark's militia was under the authority of the State of Virginia, and although a continental flag was flown over Fort Sackville, the area was governed as Virginian territory until the state gifted it to the United States federal government in 1784.<ref>Barnhart, p. 202</ref> Clark was awarded large tracts of land in southern Indiana for his services in the war and today [[Clark County, Indiana|Clark County]] is named in his honor.<ref>English, pp. 826–827</ref> |
|||
== |
==Inline citations== |
||
At the danger of getting the wrong answer, I think we need to discuss whether inline citations are simply ''desirable'' in a featured article, or mandatory. The absence of inline citations has been coming up as an objection on [[WP:FAC]] very frequently in recent weeks, principally by [[User:Maveric149|mav]]. I know he has the highest of motives, but, to my mind, at least, that objection is not supported by the current criteria: [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]] currently says that a featured article should be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", not "must contain inline citations". |
|||
{{main|Indiana Territory}} |
|||
{{see also|History of slavery in Indiana|Northwest Territory|Tecumseh's War}} |
|||
There seems to be a [[slippery slope]] - the same slippery slope that made the criterion for references go from "when and where appropriate" to required, see above - that will require any featured articles to look like an academic treatise, not an encyclopedia article. I am not objecting to the requirement to provide sources to justify the broad content of an article, nor indeed to provide specific inline citations (whether using {{tl|inote}} or otherwise) to support an specific surprising, contentious or debateable point, but I think requiring inline citations as a matter of course is simply overkill. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 20:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:Indianaterr.PNG|left|thumb|Map of the [[Indiana Territory]]]] |
|||
:While I personally prefer the idea of inline citations, I don't think it should be a requirement (nor do I think historically there has been support to require them). [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 20:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Appropriate use of inline citations is a requirement. I originally opposed this but was over-ruled. Using invisible cites will not make the article look like an academic treatise. You come from a FAC on a topic that many people think is in large part original research. Use of inline citations behind weasel terms like "some publications" is certainly appropriate in such a case. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 22:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The [[Northwest Territory]] was formed by the [[Congress of the Confederation]] on July 13, 1787, and included all land between the [[Appalachian Mountains]] and the [[Mississippi River]], the [[Great Lakes]] and the [[Ohio River]]. This single territory became the states of [[Ohio]], [[Michigan]], [[Indiana]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], and eastern [[Minnesota]]. The act established an administration to oversee the territory and had the land surveyed in accordance with [[The Land Ordinance of 1785]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=173|title=Congressional Record|publisher=1st United States Congress|year=Aug. 7, 1789|pages=p. 50–51|accessdate=2008-09-30}}</ref> At the time the territory was created, there where only two American settlements in what would become Indiana, [[Vincennes, Indiana|Vincennes]] and [[Clarksville, Indiana|Clark's Grant]]. The entire population of the northwest was under 5,000 Europeans. The Native American population was estimated to be near 20,000, but may have been as high as 75,000.<ref>Law, p. 57</ref> |
|||
:A couple of points. There is now quite a tradition for FA standards to rise over time, and I am comfortable with this general trend - calling this a "slippery slope" is too negative an attitude. Now the flavour of the month is inline cites. These are generally useful - most articles will contain at least some specific facts where it is beneficial to the reader to know precisely where they came from. However I would much prefer to see "Facts A,B,C,D should have a specific citation" rather than "This article only has two specific citations. Please add more". The former is actionable, the latter is not. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 12:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In 1785, the [[Northwest Indian War]] began. In an attempt to end the native rebellion, the Miami town of Kekionga was attacked unsuccessfully by General [[Josiah Harmar]] and Northwest Territory Governor [[Arthur St. Clair]]. [[Battle of the Wabash|St. Clair's defeat]] is the worst defeat of the U.S. army by Native Americans in history leaving almost the entire army dead or captured.<ref>Dowd, pp. 113–114</ref> The defeat led to the appointment of General "Mad Anthony" [[Anthony Wayne|Wayne]] who organized the [[Legion of the United States]] and defeated a Native American force at the [[Battle of Fallen Timbers]] in 1794. In 1795 the [[Treaty of Greenville]] was signed and a small part of eastern Indiana was opened for settlement. Fort Miamis at Kekionga was occupied by the United States, who rebuilt it as Fort Wayne. After the treaty, the powerful Miami nation considered themselves allies with the United States.<ref>Funk, p. 38</ref> Native Americans were victorious in 31 of the 37 recorded incidents involving white settlers during the 18th century.<ref>Allison, p. 272</ref> |
|||
::[[The Princess Bride|You keep using that word...]] (Well not just you, lots of people do that, but I've got to keep the quote straight :) Actionable means able to be acted upon. "Please add more" is actionable because the editor can add them, an action. While it is more helpful to ask for specific facts to be cited, that is not ''required'' to be actionable. It is fairly straightforward to prioritize the facts in the article from the two standpoints of most potentially contentious and most important and to cite those. '''Any'' featured quality article should have used good sources, so citing the top facts in the article should be no big deal. While I'm against a numerical requirement, certainly 20+ facts would not be unreasonable to cite in an article the length of even the shortest FA's, and certainly 10 would not be an unbearable task for any editor that has done good research. I'll repeat for emphasis, if you've done good research, citing a reasonable number of facts should be no big deal. If you don't feel like formatting them, just at least give a listing of which source and maybe a page number in a comment. If we promote this as just another step in the process when adding material and people get in the habit of it, it is really not very hard at all. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 13:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Very good points. At first I was really annoyed by this new requirement since it was something I was not doing before. But now that I know the requirement exists, I add inline cites as I write. It is very easy and second nature now. What still is a bugger is having to go back to an article I wrote without cites to add them. That takes hours but is worth it since it makes the article much more verifiable. Arguments that say that having such cites is not standard for an encyclopedia need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a standard encyclopedia; that letting anybody edit any time and having multiple authors carries an extra burden of proof that what the reader is reading was not simply made up. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] |
|||
::: It is a shame I said actionable and that you concentrated on that. I should've said that the former objection is more useful than the latter. You say "Please add some inline cites to this article; you get to pick" and indeed I can carry out an action passed on that just to shut you up, as it were, and get my article featured. But if I cite ten facts that could be verified in five seconds by using Google then I've added nothing to the article. It's just creating a false impression of verfiability. ''Specific'' requests for cites on facts you feel needed backing up however, definitely add something to the article. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:Wh9.gif|thumb|200px|[[William Henry Harrison]], the [[Governor of Indiana|1st Governor of Indiana Territory]] from 1801 to 1812, and the 9th [[President of the United States]]]] |
|||
::::Good points also. It is apparent from the tone of your response that my comments must have come accross much more abrasively than they were meant to. I apologize, as that was not my intention. Basically, avoiding that pitfall you point out is not much different that any other factor in writing a great article. If the guideline is to cite the most contentious and the most important facts in an article, and instead what you referred to is done, the guideline has certainly not been met. Where would be the most appropriate place to have that guideline, this article or [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]? And is my proposed guideline a good one? As a side note, I would say that even if what you outlined actually occurred, I would still argue the article is improved, even if only slightly. I'm not sure how many would agree with me on that, but I think verifiability is simply that important. It's Wikipedia's biggest weakness. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No need to apologize. I was over-reacting. Inline references are good, and FAC comments should encourage them. If those FAC comments are particularly detailed and specific, so much the better. But even if not, the writer should implicitly understand where citations are most appropriate. This is different from the vague objections like "not comprehensive, but don't know how" that don't help the reader at all. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 10:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
On July 4, 1800, the [[Indiana Territory]] was established out of Northwest Territory in preparation for [[Ohio]]'s statehood.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm|title= ''The Indiana Historian'' - Indiana Territory|publisher=IN.gov|author=Indiana Historical Bureau|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> The Indiana Land Company, who still held claim to Indiana, had been dissolved by a [[United States Supreme Court]] decision in 1798. The name ''Indiana'' meant "Land of the Indians", and referred to the fact that most of the area north of the [[Ohio River]] was still inhabited by Native Americans. ([[Kentucky]], South of the Ohio River, had been a traditional hunting ground for tribes that resided north of the river, and early American settlers in Kentucky referred to the North bank as the land of the Indians.) Although the company's claim was extinguished, Congress used their name for the new territory.<ref name = IHBNI/> The Indiana Territory contained present day Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indwes.edu/faculty/bcupp/Indiana/counties.htm|title=Indiana Counties|publisher=[[Indiana Wesleyan University]]|accessdate=2008-10-10}}</ref> Those areas were separated out in 1805 and 1809. The first Governor of the Territory was [[William Henry Harrison]], who served from 1800 until 1813. [[Harrison County, Indiana| Harrison County]] was named in honor of Harrison, who later become the ninth [[President of The United States]]. Harrison was succeeded by [[Thomas Posey]] in who served from 1813 until 1816.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforhistory.org/indiana_history_main2.html|pubslisher=Northern Indiana Center for History|title=Indiana History Chapter Two|accessdate=2008-10-09}}</ref> |
|||
Note that due to the amount of work required to add inline cites retroactively, I very strongly oppose this requirement to be retroactive on FAs that were nominated before this was a requirement. I do, however, think that a lack of a populated ==References== section is a reasonable thing to add to a FARC nomination (but that should not be the only reason). Adding such a section to an older article is not nearly as difficult as adding inline cites to such an article. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 14:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The first capital was established in Vincennes where it remained for thirteen years. After the territory was reorganized in 1809, the legislature made plans to move the capital to [[Corydon, Indiana|Corydon]] to be more centralized with the population. Corydon was established in 1808 on land donated by William Henry Harrison. The [[Corydon Historic District| new capitol building]] was finished in 1813 and the government relocated.<ref>Gresham, p. 25</ref><ref>Dunn, p. 311</ref> |
|||
:I would have to say I reluctantly agree with inline cites not being applied retroactively for the very reason you mention. Especially since it is just now getting formalized as a requirement. In a minimum of a year, I would consider revisiting that though. I would also like to emphasize what you know but did not include in your comment above, that simply listing a book (or other resource) about a subject in a References section is innapropriate, instead the book has to have actually been read and to actually confirm the material in the article. Finally, as many may well know, I would of course disagree with you that a lack of references alone is not sufficient for listing on FARC. It has been a long time now that references have been a requirement, and also a long time now a list was produced of all FA's without references to illuminate the problem, and a month now that every FA without references has had a request made to add references to it. I'm an eventualist too, and believe that Wikipedia will continue to improve, but I also believe that we can be ok with breaking some eggs to make an omlette. And I believe that omlette would feed the hungry of the world better and sooner if we break the eggs now (or soon). If it was made widely clear that at a given date, say a month from now, the references requirement would be retroactive to all FA's, I think we would all be amazed at how much success there would be in referencing them all. Given that advance warning, I think there would be nothing but good as a result of making the switch to retroactive. I'm not anticipating that many will suddenly agree with me, but I decided to restate what I believe anyway. Feel free to move this to a new section if anyone wants to reply to this instead of the inline cites issue. Thanks for reading. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Fair enough. :) I'd like to get some more back-up re objecting to FACs that don't have adequate inline cites. As is, I'm a bit of the poster child for objecting based on this (which is odd considering I did not agree to this addition to the referencing requirement at first). --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 02:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
As the population of the territory grew, so did the people's exercise of their freedoms. In 1809, the territory was granted permission to fully elect its own legislature for the first time.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 246</ref> Prior to that time, the legislature had been appointed by Governor Harrison. [[History of slavery in Indiana|Slavery in Indiana]] was the major issue in the territory at the time and the anti-slavery party won a strong majority in the first election.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 258</ref> Governor Harrison found himself at odds with and overruled by the new legislature which proceeded to overturn the indenturing and pro-slavery laws he had enacted. Slavery remained the defining issue in the state for the decades to follow.<ref>Rosenburg, p. 49</ref><ref>Dunn 1919, pp. 313-314</ref> |
|||
:::Somehow the term "inline citation" has been made synonymous with "footnote", which doesn't seem very logical to me. An inline citation is actually writing a sentence into an article paragraph along the lines of ''"According to 'Book Y' by 'John Doe', 75% of all cats are brown"'' or something like it. A footnote may be considered an inline citation, but is not in the least bit synonymous. And considering how a lot of recent article have clearly overused footnotes, I think we should try to explain either in the criteria or on nomination pages that footnotes aren't actually required and that they are not the least bit helpful if used in excess. In any subject that isn't particularly controversial, I would prefer a short and concise "References"-section over 20+ footnotes any day of the week. And '''any''' reference that has been inserted '''only''' on the account of meta-debates over pointless minutiae at the talkpage should be removed on sight. At least when it comes to FA(C)s. |
|||
=== War of 1812 === |
|||
:::[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 14:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::I wrote [[Yom Kippur War]] (which was promoted recently) and it uses the academic citation style quite a bit more than footnotes. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 14:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Question mark== |
|||
The first major event in the territory was the resumption of hostilities with the Indians. There are 58 recorded incidents between Native Americans and the United States in Indiana during the 19th century, and 43 of these are Indian victories, and eight of the American victories only involved burning deserted villages.<ref>Allison, p. 272</ref> |
|||
Following the move of [[Wikipedia:What is a featured list]] to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured list?]], should this also move to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?]] (that is, shouldn't the article's name end in a [[question mark]]?) -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 13:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:"What is a featured article" can be a statement can't it? It's just a different way of saying: <nowiki>[This is]</nowiki> what a featured article is. Unless the alternative is much better, I'd like to keep it where it is at. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 13:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Grammatically, it's a question. Maybe [[Wikipedia:What a featured article is]] would do the trick, but I'd favour the "?" option. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|Blarneyman]] 13:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm struggling to think of any context in which you would use "What is a featured article" as a statement rather than as a question (per the discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?]], I think "who" and "what" are used in somewhat different situations). [[Wikipedia:What a featured article is]] is rather less elegant, IMHO. [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] is an alternative, I suppose. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 14:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Unhappy with their treatment since the peace of 1795, the native tribes, let by the [[Shawnee]] Chief [[Tecumseh]] and his brother [[Tenskwatawa]], rose up against the Americans. [[Tecumseh's War]] started in 1811 when General William Henry Harrison led his army to rebuff the aggressive movements of Tecumseh's confederation.<ref>Funk, pp. 9–12</ref> The war continued until the [[Battle of Tippecanoe]] which firmly ending the Native American uprising and allowed the Americans to take full control of all of Indiana. The Battle earned Harrison national fame, and the nickname "Old Tippecanoe".<ref>Cleaves, p. 3</ref> |
|||
:::Ok, if we're going to move, I'd be happy with [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] since that's what is written most of the time when linking to this page anyway. We always write criteria or featured article criteria, so why wouldn't the page be named that instead? - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I would recommend against adding a question mark to the page name for reasons stated on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)]] [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 14:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Not really relevant as the ? would be at the end of the title. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|Blarneyman]] 14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
No no, I don't like this idea one bit. Not only does it strike me as pedantic, but (a) tons of pages already link here and (b) it makes the article harder to find. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 14:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree it would be practically difficult; however, I cannot agree that asking for correct punctuation in a title is pedantic. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|Blarneyman]] 14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Hmm - I'm undecided whether "[[pedantic]]" is a personal attack or a compliment (looking at our article, decidedly the former!). But anyway, whether it is pedantic or not is really beside the point: [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]] just looks wrong. It would not be at all difficult - searching would still work, the "?" is at the end of the name so links would work too, and there would be a redirect, which would also solve the "lots of links" point too. But I am not going to die in a ditch over a question mark. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I would favour the use of the question mark, or rephrasing as a non-question ("What a featured article is"). |
|||
The war between Tecumseh and Harrison merged with the War of 1812 when the remnants of Indian Confederation allied with the British in Canada. The [[Battle of Fort Harrison]] is considered to be the United States' first land victory during the war.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 267</ref> Other battles that occurred in the modern state of Indiana include the [[Siege of Fort Wayne]], the [[Pigeon Roost State Historic Site|Pigeon Roost Massacre]] and the [[Battle of the Mississinewa]]. The [[Treaty of Ghent]], signed in 1814, ended the War and relieved American settlers from their fears of the nearby British and their Indian allies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1960/1/1960_1_28.shtml|title=The Peace of Christmas Eve|publisher=American Heritage.com|author=Engleman, Fred L. |accessdate=2008-05-21}}</ref> For the first time, the United States had firm control over the Indiana Territory. |
|||
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 14:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
As was suggested above, if we were going to move it (and I'm still not fond of the idea) [[Wikipedia:featured article criteria]] would be the place to put it. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 16:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Statehood== |
|||
[[Image:Constitution Elm.JPG|right|thumb|The Constitution Elm in 2006.]] |
|||
In 1812, [[Jonathan Jennings]] defeated Harrison's chosen candidate and became the territory's representative to [[United States Congress| Congress]].<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 263</ref> Jennings used his position there to speed up Indiana's path to statehood by immediately introducing legislation to grant Indiana statehood, even though the population of the entire territory was under 25,000. Jennings did so against the wishes of incoming governor [[Thomas Posey]]. No action was taken on the legislation at the time though because of the outbreak of the War of 1812.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 293</ref> |
|||
== FAC and Peer Review == |
|||
Posey had created a rift in the politics of the territory by refusing to reside in the capitol of Corydon, but instead living in [[Jeffersonville, Indiana| Jeffersonville]] to be closer to his doctor.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 283–284</ref><ref group=n>According to some sources [[Thomas Posey]] refused to live in Corydon because of his ongoing quarrel with [[Dennis Pennington]]. See: Gresham, p. 22</ref> He further complicated matters by being a supporter of slavery, much to the chagrin of opponents like Jennings, [[Dennis Pennington]], and others who dominated the Territorial Legislature and who sought to use the bid for statehood to permanently end slavery in the territory.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 293</ref> |
|||
I know that it is listed as a step in "The Path to a Featured Article" infobox, but I have been noticing more and more often that articles seem to be nominated for FA without even bothering to go through the peer review process. Or they get impatient after about a week of PR and jump it over to FAC. Perhaps there should be a rule that any article is firmly required, without exception, to go through peer review for the full month period that PR remains active before being allowed to be a FAC. Should that apply also to repeat bids? (I think so - I can't see how it can hurt to give an article more time and outside help.) Even if there are good articles that get through to FA without PR, I find it hard to believe that the process can be a significant impediment to any article. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? Not to say that's a bad thing at all, but clearly there is a backlog, so should anyone object that a new rule of this sort would lower the number of promoted articles, the answer seems to be that that doesn't appear to necessarily be a bad thing in the short term - some of those older promoted ones waiting in the wings and getting dusty can finally see the Main Page! Anyway, just my musings... What do you all think? --[[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] July 2, 2005 02:34 (UTC) |
|||
===Founding=== |
|||
:Requirng peer review for FACs has been proposed before and has been roundly shot down every time. It is understood that peer review is an '''optional''' part of the Featured article process. Requiring it is instruction creep, and it serves little value becaus people have no incentive to make it work. ''As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway?'' - No. The standards - what we expect of a featured article - have gone up (A LOT) over the past year, and this has artificially depressed the rate at which featured articles are being generated. I believe today is the 183rd day of 2005 and (to date) we have had a net increase of 181 featured articles this year (which is in fact below the 1 article/day minimum we must sustain in order to prevent any repeats). [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] July 2, 2005 02:39 (UTC) |
|||
In February 1815, the [[United States House of Representatives]] began debate on granting Indiana Territory statehood. In early 1816, the Territory approved a [[census]] and Pennington was named to be the [[enumerator|census enumerator]]. The population of the territory was found to be 63,897,<ref>Haymond, p. 181</ref> above the limit required for statehood that was stated in the Northwest Ordinance. On [[May 13]], [[1816]], the Enabling Act was passed and the state was granted permission to form a government subject to the approval of [[United States Congress|Congress]].<ref>Funk, p. 42</ref> A constitutional convention met in 1816 in [[Corydon, Indiana|Corydon]]. The [[Constitution of Indiana|state's first constitution]] was drawn up on June 10, and elections were held in August to fill the offices of the new state government. In November of that year the constitution was approved by Congress and the territorial government was dissolved, ending the existence of the Indiana Territory and replacing it with the State of Indiana.<ref>Funk, p. 35</ref><ref name =ihc3>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforhistory.org/indiana_history_main3.html|publisher=Indiana Center For History|title=''Indiana History Chapter three''|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> |
|||
:: Fair enough. I withdraw the proposal. (Shoulda checked the archives, I guess! Oops.) --[[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] July 2, 2005 02:42 (UTC) |
|||
Jennings and his supporters were able to take control of the convention and Jennings was elected president of the convention. Other notables at the convention included Dennis Pennington, [[Davis Floyd]], and [[William Hendricks]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/history/6117.htm|title= ''List of Delegates at first Constitutional Convention''|publisher=In.gov|author=Indiana Historical Bureau|accessdate=2008-05-18}}</ref> Pennington and Jennings were at the forefront of the effort to prevent slavery from entering Indiana and sought to create a constitutional ban on it. Pennington was quoted as saying "Let us be on our guard when our convention men are chosen that they be men opposed to slavery". They succeeded in their goal and a ban was placed in the new constitution.<ref>Henderson, p. 193</ref> That same year Indiana statehood was approved by Congress. Jonathan Jennings, whose motto was "No slavery in Indiana", was elected governor of the state defeating Thomas Posey 5,211 to 3,934 votes.<ref name = w163>Woollen, p. 163</ref> Jennings served two terms as governor and then went on to represent the state in congress for another 18 years. Upon election, Jennings declared Indiana a free state.<ref name = w163/> The abolitionists won their final victory in the 1820 [[Indiana Supreme Court]] case of [[Polly v. Lasselle]] that freed all the remaining slaves in the state.<ref>Dunn, pp. 346—348</ref> |
|||
:::Nah, in the future, don't bother checking archives - it's a waste of your time. It's probably buried deep in the archives of the featured article candidates talk page, and there are people here who can tell you off the top of their heads that an idea is not new. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] July 2, 2005 02:47 (UTC) |
|||
If you recommend an article should be sent to Peer Review, you should be active on Peer Review --[[User:PopUpPirate|PopUpPirate]] 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:Corydon old capital.jpg|right|thumb|[[Corydon Historic District|Indiana's First State Capitol Building]]]] |
|||
== [[Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit]] == |
|||
As the northern tribal lands gradually opened to white settlement, Indiana's population rapidly increased and the [[center of population]] shifted continually northward.<ref name = d295>Dunn 1919, p. 295</ref> [[Indianapolis]] was selected to be the site of the new state capital in 1820 because of its central position within the state. [[Jeremiah Sullivan]], a justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, invented the name Indianapolis by joining ''Indiana'' with ''polis'', the [[Greek language|Greek]] word for city; literally, Indianapolis means "Indiana City".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/judiciary/citc/justice-bios/sullivan.html|title= Biography of Jeremiah Sullivan|publisher=IN.gov|author=Indiana Historical Bureau|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> The city was founded on the [[White River]] under the incorrect assumption that the river could serve as a major transportation artery; however, the waterway was too sandy for trade. In 1825, Corydon was finally replaced as the seat of government in favor of [[Indianapolis]]. At the time, Indianapolis was in the wilds and {{convert|60|mi|km}} from the nearest settlement. The government established itself in the [[Marion County, Indiana| Marion County]] Courthouse as the second state capital.<ref name = d295/> |
|||
Please take a look. --[[User:MarSch|MarSch]] 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Early development=== |
|||
{{See also|Indian removals in Indiana|Indiana Mammoth Improvement Act}} |
|||
== Image copyrights, again == |
|||
[[Image:IndianaCapitol.jpg|left|thumb| The fifth [[Indiana Statehouse]] in [[Indianapolis]]. Built in 1888 on the site of the third statehouse.]] |
|||
Raul, can we list the acceptable image copyrights on here for Requirement Five, for future reference? There is still a problem about fair use images at FAC. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I've modified the link to go to the license section of the Copyright FAQ, which lists more-or-less all of the common licenses and whether or not they are acceptable. Is that suitable to you? [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 02:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Perfect. Thanks. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 02:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Raising the bar == |
|||
{{USCensusPop |
|||
|1800 = 2632 |
|||
|1810 = 24520 |
|||
|1820 = 147178 |
|||
|1830 = 343031 |
|||
|1840 = 685866 |
|||
|1850 = 988416 |
|||
|1860 = 1350428 |
|||
|footnote =<ref name = census>{{cite web|url=http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2007-01.csv|title=Population Tables|publisher=[[United States Census Bureau]]|accessdate=2008-08-07}}</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
I'd like to change |
|||
The [[National Road]] was connected to Indianapolis in 1829, connecting Indiana to the [[Eastern United States]].<ref name = inh4>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforhistory.org/indiana_history_main4.html|publisher=Indiana Center For History|title=Indiana History Chapter Four|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> It was also about this time that citizens of Indiana became known as [[Hoosier]]s and the state took on the motto "Crossroads of America".<ref group=n>The origin of the word Hoosier is unknown</ref> In 1832, construction began on the [[Wabash and Erie Canal]], a project connecting the waterways of the Great Lakes to the Ohio River. The canal system was soon made obsolete by [[Rail transport in the United States|railroads]]. These developments in transportation served to economically connect Indiana to the Northern [[East Coast of the United States|East Coast]], rather than relying solely on the natural waterways which connected Indiana to Mississippi River and [[Gulf Coast of the United States|Gulf Coast states]].<ref>Nevins, pp. 206, 227</ref><ref group=n>Map on page Nevins, p. 209 shows that as of 1859, no Railroad crossed the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers.</ref> |
|||
:''Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.'' |
|||
to |
|||
:''Be the best article about the topic available in any encyclopedia or information resource, on or off-line.'' |
|||
Is there any reason to set the bar lower? - [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 12:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::We would have to start rejecting a lot more FACs :). I think we could reword to make the statement stronger and that would be a good thing.. but your statement is a little ''too'' strong for my tastes. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 13:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In 1831, construction on the third [[Indiana Statehouse|state capitol building]] began. This building, designed by the firm of [[Ithiel Town]] and [[Alexander Jackson Davis]], had a design inspired by the [[Greece|Greek]] [[Parthenon]] and opened in 1841. It was first statehouse that was built and used exclusively by the state government.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/idoa/2550.htm|title=''The State House Story''|publisher=IN.gov|author=Indiana Historical Bureau|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> |
|||
:::Why too strong? I think many of our present featured articles would hold up to it. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 11:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The state suffered from financial difficulties during its first three decades. Jonathan Jennings attempted to begin a period of internal improvements. Among his projects, the [[Indiana Canal Company]] was reestablished to build a canal around the [[Falls of the Ohio]]. The [[Panic of 1819]] caused the state's only two banks to fold, hurting Indiana's credit halting the projects and hampered the start of any new projects until the 1830s, after the repair of the state's finances during the terms of William Hendricks and Noah Noble. Beginning in 1831, large scale plans for statewide improvements were set into motion. Overspending on the internal improvements led to a large deficit that had to be funded by [[Government bond| state bonds]] through the newly created [[Bank of Indiana]] and sale of over nine million acres (36,000 km²) of [[public land]]. By 1841 the debt had become unmanageable.<ref>Goodrich, pp. 189–192</ref> Having burrowed over $13 million, the equivalent to the state's first fifteen years of tax revenue, the government was unable to even pay interest on the debt.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 448</ref> The state narrowly avoided [[bankruptcy]] by negotiating the transfer of the public works to to the state's creditors in exchange for a 50% reduction in the state's debt.<ref>Dunn, p. 415</ref><ref group=n>The state's three railroads, the Michigan Road, the Vincennes Road, and all of the canals (except the [[Wabash and Erie Canal]]) where transferred to the creditors.</ref> The internal improvements began under Jennings paid off as the state began to experience rapid population growth that slowly remedied the state's funding problems. The improvements led to a fourfold increase in land value, and an even larger increase in farm produce.<ref>Dunn, pp. 324-325, 418</ref> |
|||
::::Many books have been written about topics we wish to cover with FAs. We cannot, and should not aspire to, cover any topic with the same breadth and depth as a lengthy scholarly work. Besides, the "best article available" varies by who is looking; the best article to a scholarly researcher is much different than the best article for a curious but casual reader. We must serve all audiences, so it is doubtful we can be the best to everyone on everything. But I like your ambitions! :) - [[User:Bantman|Bantman]] 18:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
During the 1840s, Indiana completed the process of [[Indian removal|removing]] the Native American tribes. The Potawatomi were relocated to [[Kansas]] in 1838. Those who did not leave voluntarily were forced to travel to Kansas in what came to be called the [[Potawatomi Trail of Death]], leaving only the [[Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians]] in the Indiana area.<ref>Funk, pp. 45–47</ref> The majority of the Miami tribe was removed in 1846, although many members of the tribe were permitted to remain in the state on lands they held privately under the terms of the 1818 [[Treaty of St. Mary's]].<ref>Woollen, pp. 35–37</ref> The other tribes were convinced to leave the state voluntarily. The [[Shawnee]] migrated westward to settle in [[Missouri]], and the [[Lenape]] migrated into Canada. The other minor tribes in the state, including the [[Wea]], moved westward, mostly to Kansas. |
|||
:::::I concur with Bantam - an 40 kilobyte-or-less article on some given subject cannot ever hope to be more informative than a 400 page book on the same. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 20:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The purpose of articles on Wikipedia is to provide the most essential information in as condensed a format as possible, and we can easily do that better than most 400 page books. If we need more information, we move the details to specific articles and get those featured as well. What about scholars vs casual readers? Indeed, we need to serve all audiences, and therefore we can state that our articles should be the ''best at making the tradeoff required to serve all audiences''. Seems clear enough to me. Note that the qualification of "representing what Wikipedia offers that is ''unique'' on the Internet" is equally hard to reach since many of our FA topics are covered on lots of other sites. It is really a guideline more than a rule, and that's why I think making it more ambitious is justified. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== References == |
|||
By the 1850s, Indiana had undergone major changes: what was once a frontier with sparse population had become a developing state with several cities. In 1816, Indiana's population was around 65,000, and in less than 50 years, it had increased to more than one million inhabitants.<ref>{{cite web |title=Population and Population Centers by State|publisher=U.S. Census Bureau| url=http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/statecenters.txt|accessdate=2008-05-21}}</ref> |
|||
Perhaps we might want to explicitly put the "...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." part of [[Wikipedia:The perfect article]] here; I see that this is a criticism that often arises in candidacies, and I reckon that it isn't obvious for people who are not accustomed to scientific article,s for instance. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the phrase "reputable sources" could become a needless point of contention. Sometimes a source is not viewed as "reputable" by everyone, and yet it represents a notable view (where no others exist). [[User:119|119]] 19:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::I actually like this. If there is no other source for a view, then any source is fine - as long as it is noted, the reader can judge the validity of the source himself. But for most facts or viewpoints, I feel much more confident in believing them when they are referenced to, say, [[New England Journal of Medicine]] rather than about.com. Even for contentious views, a reference from a known source, even if biased, is better than one where the reader cannot judge the potential bias of an item because the source is unknown to him. - [[User:Bantman|Bantman]] 21:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::That's easy to solve with "the most reputable source available". Then people can't use garbage sites if much better is available, but don't get frustrated when there is only one source has the info. It is important to discourage shoddy resources as references just to get by the requirement. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Most reputable" is very difficult - for example, [[Fox News Channel]] and [[National Public Radio]] are both held as credible and unbiased by many, but also accused (justly or unjustly, it doesn't matter) by many as substantially biased. Regardless, as long as sources are well known, the reader can judge for himself. If a fact is referenced with Fox News as a source, the reader can say to himself "I trust Fox News, so I trust this is true" ''or'' "Fox News is biased; therefore this fact may also be biased." Reputation in this case is not a problem; it is recognition of the source. In other cases, "most reputable" is appropriate, for example when a scholarly peer-reviewed journal (especially in the hard sciences) can supply the same facts as some blog. Accessibility is another issue; if we have two reputable sources, we would rather reference the more accessible one to facilitate fact checking. Example: I'd rather reference a [[Smithsonian]] web article on most unspecialized knowledge than an offline scholarly journal, because 1) Smitsonian is trustworthy, 2) the subject matter is not controversial enough to need the gravitas of a journal, and 3) accessibility facilitates fact checking, which reinforces our reputability. To summarize, it looks like I've come up with two more criteria for references, plus Taxman's: |
|||
:::*Reputable |
|||
:::*Recognizable |
|||
:::*Accessible |
|||
:::We need to encourage the maximization of all three of these aspects for references: the perfect reference would be an online article from an unimpeachable source with a household name. While this is almost never possible, we need to strive for that, and favor references that achieve the best balance among the three criteria listed above. - [[User:Bantman|Bantman]] 17:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think is a solution in search of a problem. We have not, to my knowledge, had problems with people citing crappy sources in articles because I believe it's pretty obvious that you are expected to use good ones. Until it becomes problem, I don't see a need to add this. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::With all due respect, I disagree. One recent example is [[cat]], which had a successful FAC nomination despite using as references such websites as "cats.about.com", "hgtv.com" (a home improvement cable channel), "cozycatfurniture.com", "fabcats.org", "demented-pixie.com" (my personal favorite), "messybeast.com", and personal webpages. While these references are all accessible, they are neither reputable nor recognizable. This makes the article weaker than it should be, considering that there must be a wide variety of excellent references available for most of the facts cited. Clearly, using superior references strengthens the article, and I firmly believe we should encourage this. - [[User:Bantman|Bantman]] 20:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I also disagree. I see this all the time, people citing Joe's website in support of their claims, and lacking even a hint of understanding of the difference in quality of sources as Brian has outlined above. See [[Talk:Battery electric vehicle]]. Or at least they feign to in order to not have to look for better sources. I like Brian's criteria. I do suppose what I am mentioning is not as much of a problem for FA's but it does still happen for FAC's and certainly happens all over Wikipedia. To respond directly to Brian though I don't find Fox nor NPR as remotely high quality references for a fact. I would take a well regarded textbook over either one of them any day, because of the editing and review process those go through. For material that is new, and is not in journals or textbooks, we may have to accept that news organizations are the best sources we have, but lets not kid ourselves that they are as high quality as other choices. Is cite sources the ''best'' place to educate people on how to research facts and what sources are best, or do people have ideas on where that best can be done? - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Of course you're right re: news orgs vs. textbooks; for some reason I had contemporary politics in my head, which is more dependent on news for sources. Even then, I'd generally prefer newspapers and magazines, for precisely the reasons you mention. - [[User:Bantman|Bantman]] 21:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry, My point was mostly emphasised like this: "...is ''well-documented''; reputable ''sources are cited'', especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." I worry much more about people not giving any source, than people ginving sources of questionable value. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:''I worry much more about people not giving any source'' - this is generally not a problem now - the references requirement is a well-accepted one. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 20:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::At least for FA's, but we still have a long way to go to make sure editors reallize it is important for every article, and even that all editors will see guidelines that recommend it. That said, we have come a long way in a year on this front and all progress should be considered encouraging. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Indeed. I've been using reference sections for all new articles I create (even stubs), and some editors (including well-known and respected ones) have tried changing them to "external links". I think awareness is high in the FAC community, but we still need to spread the good word to others. - [[User:Bantman|Bantman]] 18:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== "Inline citations" == |
|||
Because of the rapidly changing state, the [[Constitution of Indiana|constitution]] on 1816 began to be criticized.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 418</ref><ref group=n>The original constitution required a referendum be held every twelve years to approve or reject and replace it</ref> Opponents claimed the constitution had to many appointed positions, the terms established were inadequate, and some of the clauses were too easily manipulated by the political parties that did not exist when then constitution was wrote.<ref>Dunn 1919, pp. 311–313</ref> The first constitution had not been put to a vote by the general public, and following the great population growth in the state, it was seen as inadequate. A constitutional convention was called in January 1851 to create a new one. The new constitution was approved by the convention on February 10, 1851, and submitted for a vote to the [[electorate]] that year. It was approved and has since been the official constitution.<ref>Dunn 1919, p. 423</ref> |
|||
There's obviously a clash of opinions when it comes to the following sentence: |
|||
===Higher education=== |
|||
''For a list of institutions, see [[:Category:Universities and colleges in Indiana]]. |
|||
:[A featured article...] ''Includes '''references''', arranged in a <nowiki>==References==</nowiki> section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]).'' |
|||
The earliest institutions of education in Indiana were missions, established by French Jesuit priests to convert local Native American nations. The Jefferson Academy was founded in 1801 as a public university for the Indiana Territory, and was reincorporated as [[Vincennes University]] in 1806, the first in the state.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vinu.edu/cms/opencms/about/history_mission/|title=A Brief History|publisher=vinu.edu|author=Vincennes University|accessdate=2008-05-21}}</ref> |
|||
For one thing, the widespread notion that "inline citation" means "footnote" is a problem. That this sentence is cited by those who feel that inline citations should be ''mandatory'' is an even bigger problem. Most FAC subjects should be comprehensive and general enough to require inline citations, but that does not mean it applies to all candidates equally. Personally, I feel the current wording is ambiguous for a reason and should stay that way. Just like too many images or a bad sub-section hierarchy will spoil an article, so will a pointless sprinkling of cosmetic footnotes. A very good example of this is [[names of the Greeks]]. |
|||
[[Image:NDLS Exterior 1.jpg|thumb|180px|right|The exterior of the Notre Dame Law School]]Indiana was the first state to have state funded public schools. The 1816 constitution required that Indiana's state legislature create a "general system of education, ascending in a regular gradation, from township schools to a state university, wherein tuition shall be gratis, and equally open to all". It took some time for the legislature to fulfill its promise, partly because of a debate regarding whether the ''Territory'' of Indiana's public university should be adopted as the ''State'' of Indiana's public university, or whether a new public university should be founded in [[Bloomington, Indiana| Bloomington]] to replace the territorial university.<ref>Dunn, pp. 315-317</ref> The state government chartered [[Indiana University]] in 1820 as the State Seminary. Construction began in 1822; the first professor was hired in 1823; classes were offered in 1824. The 1820s also saw the start of free public township schools. During the administration of William Hendricks a plot of ground was set aside in each township for the construction of a schoolhouse.<ref>Goodrich, p. 241–242</ref> |
|||
:I believe it is fairly established that there is not a consensus ''style'' for inline citations, so footnotes or Harvard referencing or whatever else is considered fine. Maybe that should be in the criteria specifically, but it has not been in order to simplify the criteria as much as possible. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I think all objections that call for more referencing without proper justification should be disregarded, especially when made with nonsense claims that, for example, all historical facts need specific references. Blanket statements like this is about as merited as "it's not interesting enough". And it should be very obvious that any article that has multiple notes in single paragraphs or even sentences are either grossly over-referenced or need to be rewritten. |
|||
[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 18:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:And I think you should show more respect to your fellow wikipedians, and try more to understand their thesis, or should I say their answers to your objections all these days. Thanks. [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA]] 18:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Other state colleges were established as the state grew. Some were private institutions, such as [[Wabash College]], established in 1832.<ref>Gray, p. 87</ref> The [[University of Notre Dame]] received a charter from the Indiana General Assembly in 1844, but was based on the campus of a Potawatomi mission established a decade earlier.<ref>Gray, p. 102</ref> Other schools were publicly owned, such as [[Indiana State University]], established in [[Terre Haute, Indiana|Terre Haute]] in 1865 as a state [[normal school]]. [[Purdue University]] was founded in 1869 as a school of science and agriculture. [[Ball State University]] was founded as a normal school in the early 1900s and gifted to the state in 1918.<ref>Gray, p. 182</ref> |
|||
:But take a look through the archive on this talk page about footnotes. It's not as cut-and-dried as some of the other requirements and has proven to be a little controversial here. I know I brought up similar concerns in (I think) March, and we've been discussing it off an on since then. No real consensus has been reached, but we've so far agreed that better referencing on articles is a Good Thing (tm). [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 18:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Transportation=== |
|||
:And again, please read the archives, where the consensus for this was achieved. ''Also spend some time at [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. If after really reading those, you can tell me some actual advantages (that outweigh the costs) to reducing inline citation then I am all ears.'' I will specifically repeat that it has been established that appropriate does not mean none. I believe there is no subject that would ''benefit'' from not having inline citations. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In the early 19th century, most transportation of goods in Indiana was done by river. Most of the state's estuaries drained into the [[Ohio River]], ultimately meeting up with the [[Mississippi River]], where goods were transported and sold in [[New Orleans]].<ref>Gray, pp. 3-4</ref><ref>Thompson, pp. 98-100</ref> |
|||
::What kind of response is that? Slambo claims he can't find the consensus you insist is there and you tell him to read it again? You're no longer discussing this. You've just dug in and now you're doing your best to blatantly trivialize objections or to warp whatever criticism that might be voiced into some sort of general assault on the foundations of verifiability. No one's even calling for a rewrite of policy, yet you're rock solid in your opinion that only ''your interpretation'' is valid and that whatever you've perceived as consensus in past discussions supports you. It's disheartening to say the least. |
|||
::[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well hmm, misunderstandings all around, because that response wasn't to Slambo, it was to you, but I can see the confusion, because I didn't place it very well, sorry. So was MATIA's comment, [here's the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article&diff=22267407&oldid=22267012]. I think the indenting is finally right for who was responding to who. You do need to read the archives, because, while there were opinions both ways, what we ended up changing the criteria to is the citations are needed, and that appropriate doesn't mean none. I'm not telling you that's my interpretating, that was the interpretation of many, and I can pull out specific diffs from various nominations after we made that change if you like, specifically discussing the difference between appropriate and none. But ignore all that if you want to, and just respond to the most important part, italicized above. Given that, I do feel this is very important to the core issues of building an encyclopedia, so I will defend it strongly, but I certainly don't mean to piss people off, and I'm sorry, because clearly I have. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 02:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've never liked breaking up threads, but it's your response, so it's your call. |
|||
::::Previous discussions do not count as policy unless they've resulted in actual policy change, and it's very obvious that even if the unanimous consensus you talk about existed, there's clearly enough criticism to consider it rather shaky. Just the fact that it's not immidiately obvious to someone like slambo is a very good sign that you're exaggerating its importance. Your highlighted sentence is really nothing more than a repetition of what I've already criticized, so I don't see what there is to add. For some reason you're trying very hard to polarize and overly simplify the attempts of others to nuance policy and making them out as being generally "anti-reference". The policies and ideas that articles should be verifiable are not in any kind of jeapordy even with the somewhat conservative interpretations about footnote usage offered by myself, bish and geogre. |
|||
::::[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 09:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ok, forget previous discussions. Pretend they never occurred if it's easier. But you've sidestepped the very core of the issue by saying it would just be repetitive. Well it wouldn't be, because this is all you've said (from the most representative quotes I can find besides what is on this page) is: "Just remove those 18 footnotes", "...and those who don't aren't going to demand specific page references.", "There's no value in keeping them", "Referencing things like ... effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose", "what I'm saying is no different from complaining that there are too many images or sub-sections in an FAC", " If a note clearly serves little or no purpose in referencing an article '...enhanced by appropriate usage...' might just as well be interpreted as 'none' (though not in this particular case)". So you haven't stated any actual positive value for Wikipedia or its articles to reduced inline citation. You've just repeatedly stated you don't think they're needed. What I'm asking you for is the why behind your stance. What is the value to removing them? Again, if anyone can answer that, and that value is greater that the cost of reduced verifiability, I'm at least listening. If what you really think is that they are just being misused, then lets work on how to best use them correctly,a nd make great, reliable articles, which is of course what we're all after, no matter what differences of opinion we have. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe I can help clear up what I meant to convey... The citations requirement as it stands now is that references must be cited in the article. As a minimum, the references used must be listed in a <nowiki>== References ==</nowiki> section which is normally at the end of the article. This should (not must) be enhanced with the appropriate use of inline citations. The lack of consensus is over whether the inline citations should be in the form of footnotes, journal style notes that refer to items in the References section, or even numbered links to external online references. It is up to the articles' editors to determine the appropriate amount and use of inline citations for each article. We have not come to an agreement on one specific type of inline citations (personally, I don't much like footnotes, but I don't use a lack of inlines or their presence as an objection), and the way things are going with nominations, I don't see that happening for a while yet. What we have all agreed is that aiding the verifiability of an article's facts is necessary. [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 11:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Both have its merits and demerits. I have a few suggestions: What if we combine the merits of both systems? Use inotes so that it doesn't break up the flow of the text, but at the same time Taxman can view the references. How this is done? By CSS: class="inote" for Peter and all of us it will be <code>inote{display:none}</code> and for Taxman it will be *<code>inote{display:all}</code>. So while we'll see nothing in normal mode, Taxman who'll have to modify monoboox.css, will see the following: |
|||
The first road in the region was called Buffalo Trace, an old bison trail that ran from the Falls of the Ohio to Vincennes.<ref>Gray, p. 99</ref> After the capitol was relocated to Corydon, several local roads were created to connect the new capitol to the Ohio River at [[Mauckport, Indiana| Mauckport]] and to New Albany. The first major road in the state was the [[National Road]], a project funded by the federal government. The road entered Indiana in 1829 connecting [[Richmond, Indiana| Richmond]], [[Indianapolis]], and [[Terre Haute, Indiana| Terre Haute]] with the eastern states and eventually [[Illinois]] and [[Missouri]] in the west.<ref>Gray, p. 94</ref> The state adopted the advanced methods used to build the national road on a statewide basis and began to build a new road network that was usable year-round. In the 1830s a North-South road was built, the [[Indiana State Road 29| Michigan Road]], connected [[Michigan]] and [[Kentucky]] and passed through Indianapolis in the middle.<ref>Gray, p. 94</ref> These two new roads were roughly [[perpendicular]] within the state and served as the foundation for a road system to encompass all of Indiana. |
|||
*<code><nowiki>{{inote|Milton-Ch2-pg3}}</nowiki></code> rendered as: <code>text text text 103<sup>Milton-Ch2-pg3</sup></code> – for books |
|||
*<code><nowiki>{{inote|http://www.google.com|4}}</nowiki></code> rendered as: <code>text text text 103<sup>[http://www.google.com 4]</sup></code> – for URL's |
|||
what the rest of us will see: |
|||
*text text text 103 |
|||
[[User:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 12:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:That's awesome, thanks. We've been clamoring for an option for those that don't want to see them don't have to, and that is almost perfect. The only thing better would be to have that be an account preferences option instead of having to change the css style sheet. I don't mind personally, but it would be easier for everyone. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::You'd need to contact a developer to set the class in the HTML code first. I was also wondering if we could have a "verify" button in addition to "article" "edit" "discussion" etc., so that the actual modification of the css file by a user is not done; instead the server dishes up the correct css file. We already have a "print" version, so a "verify" version is the next logical step. [[User:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 14:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you for suggesting a compromise, Nichalp, but I like the fact the footnotes link straight to the reference section. It ''is'' a hellofalot better than footnotes in books and both inline citation and footnotes have their merits and both can be used in the same article, so simply turning off footnotes for most people doesn't really seem like a practical solution. And as for print-outs, the current system would work fine even on paper. |
|||
:::I'm also not quie comfortable being described as a proponent of "a system". I'm trying to influence people to stop overusing footnotes, not to get rid of them altogether. I think slambo's post summarizes my own view of this very nicely. It should be determined from case to case and the article editors should preferably decide. But I still think it's very reasonable to object to either too few or too many footnotes as long as the objection is at least generally specified. "There isn't enough/too many references" or "all historical facts require/don't require notes" isn't actionable, and I try my best to specify what I feel to be overusage whenever I object even if I don't address each individual note. |
|||
:::[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 18:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm one of those who likes footnotes, but dislikes the clutter and distractions of footnote overuse. I prefer to use a style I've seen in recent publications which limits footnotes to one per paragraph. In this style, the footnote number is placed at the end of the paragraph, where it is least distracting. In the footnote text, all of the relevant reference information for the paragraph is briefly described. See [[Population history of American indigenous peoples]] for an example of my usage of this style. I hope others like it and use it. --[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin Myers]] 04:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== FAs and Conflicts of Interest == |
|||
In 1832, the state began construction on the [[Wabash and Erie Canal]]. The canal was started at [[Lake Erie]], passed through Fort Wayne, and connected to the [[Wabash River]]. This new canal made water transport possible from New Orleans to Lake Erie on a internal route rather than sailing around the whole of the Eastern United States and entering through Canada. Other canal projects were started, but all were abandoned before completion due to the states foundering credit after the devaluation of the bonds.<ref>Dunn, p. 429</ref> |
|||
I don't know if any of you are keeping track of the fun and games with regards to [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo]], but I thought we might try to come to some consensus before the article returns for another FA vote. In a nutshell, here is my major issue with the article: One of the people actively involved in the Terri Schiavo case, Gordon Watts ([[User:GordonWattsDotCom]] and here's his [http://gordonwatts.com/ personal webpage]) is actively involved in the creation of the article and even nominated it for FAC last time. I am aware of the [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] standards, and that a conflict of interest doesn't necesarily keep someone from contributing to an article. However, I feel uneasy about articles with such blatent conflict of interest becoming a FA, especially when the editor promoting the article for FAC is the one with the conflict. Does anyone else have concerns about this? Could the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]] be adjusted to reflect this, or is that going too far?--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 02:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The first railroad in Indiana was built in [[Shelbyville, Indiana|Shelbyville]] in the late 1830s. The first major line was completed in 1847, connecting [[Madison, Indiana| Madison]] with Indianapolis. By the 1850s, the railroad began to become popular in Indiana. The railroad brought major changes to Indiana and enhanced the states economic growth.<ref name = inh4/> Although Indiana's natural waterways connected it to the South via cities such as St. Louis and New Orleans, the new rail lines ran East-West, and connected Indiana with the economies of the northern states.<ref>Nevins, pp. 195-196.</ref> As late as mid-1859, no rail line yet bridged the Ohio or Mississippi rivers.<ref>Nevins, pp. 209</ref> Because of an increased demand on the states resources and the embargo against the [[Confederate States of America|Confederacy]], the rail system was mostly completed by the end of the [[American Civil War]]. |
|||
:Well, one way to look at this is that someone who is very familiar with the details is contributing to the article, so it's more likely that accurate (and hopefully well-referenced) information would be included. However, we could also see it as a veiled attempt to push a particular POV. Personally, I would rather have someone who has done a lot of research in a field be a contributor to articles in that field (which is why, for example, all of my own edits have something to do with railroad history and rail transport technology). As long as we do everything we can to ensure a [[WP:NPOV|neutral POV]], and work to make the articles as readable as possible, even to the point of "brilliant prose", then there is less to worry about. [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 17:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Civil War== |
|||
[[image:80 Indiania Regiment.jpg|left|thumb|300px|80th Indiana Infantry Regiment and the 19th Indiana Light Artillery defending against the Confederates at the [[Battle of Perryville]] by H. Mosler]] |
|||
{{main|Indiana in the American Civil War}} |
|||
Indiana, a free state and [[Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial|boyhood home of]] [[Abraham Lincoln]], remained a member of the Union during the [[American Civil War]]. Indiana regiments were involved in all the major engagements of the war and almost all of the engagements in the western theater. Hoosiers were present in both the first and last battles of the war. During the course of the war Indiana provided 126 infantry regiments, 26 batteries of artillery, and 13 regiments of cavalry to the cause of the Union.<ref>Funk 1967, pp. 23–24,163</ref> |
|||
== Further criteria added to what is a FA == |
|||
In the initial call to arms issued in 1861, Indiana was assigned a quota of 7,500 men—a tenth of the total amount called, to join the Union Army in putting down the rebellion.<ref>Gray, p. 156</ref> So many volunteered in the first call that thousands had to be turned away. Before the war ended Indiana contributed 208,367 men to fight and serve in the war.<ref name = f6734/> Funk 1967, p. 3–4</ref> Casualties were over 35% among these men. 24,416 lost their lives in the conflict and over 50,000 more were wounded.<ref name = f6734>Funk 1967, p. 3–4</ref> |
|||
I have added the following criteria, because the GNAA article failed solely on this issue: |
|||
At the outbreak of the war, Indiana was run by a [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] and southern sympathetic majority in the State Legislature. It was by the actions of Governor [[Oliver Morton]], who illegally borrowed millions of dollars to finance the army, that Indiana was able to contribute so greatly to the war effort.<ref>Goodrich, p. 230–236</ref> Morton suppressed the state legislature with the help of the [[United States Republican Party|Republican]] minority to prevent it from assembling during 1861 and 1862. This prevented any chance the Democrats had in interfering with the war effort or attempting to secede from the Union.<ref>Thornbrough, p. 149</ref> |
|||
:Additionally, an article which exists on Wikipedia, though it may not be deleted because it is considered notable, may not become a featured article unless the group has been referenced in a published book, newspaper, magazine or Academic journal. (cf [[Gay Nigger Association of America]]). This is a controversial FA criteria because it cannot be actioned (we cannot effect external publications and we cannot publish [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. |
|||
If we are going to fail an FA solely on this criteria, then we should at least update this as a reason why an article may not make FA. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== FA instructions and criteria == |
|||
===Morgan's Raid=== |
|||
[[Image:Oliver Hazard Perry Morton - Brady-Handy.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Oliver Hazard Perry Morton]], the 14th [[Governor of Indiana]] 1861 to 1867, and [[United States Senator]] from Indiana 1867 to 1877]] |
|||
{{Main|Morgan's Raid}} |
|||
Dialogue between Bishonen and me pasted in as relevant to this page. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The only Civil War battle fought in Indiana occurred during Morgan's Raid. On the morning of July 9, 1863, Morgan attempted to cross the [[Ohio River]] into Indiana with his force of 2,400 cavalry. After his crossing was briefly contested he marched north to Corydon where he engaged the Harrison County branch of the [[Indiana Legion]] in the short [[Battle of Corydon]] before the militia withdrew into the town. Morgan took command of the heights south of Corydon and shot two shells from his batteries into the town, which promptly surrendered. The battle left fifteen dead, forty wounded, and 355 captured.<ref name = ft343344>Foote, p. 343–344</ref> |
|||
I could cope with the removal of the expansion to point 6 (what not to write at the top of a nomination), but I will argue strongly that the additional signpost in point 1, concerning the need to have nominations copy edited thoroughly beforehand, should stay. Substandard prose was becoming a serious problem in the nominations, and I think (although I'm not certain) that the problem has lessened since the recent expansion of point 1. Clearly, nominators either had a distorted sense of the standards that apply ('compelling, even brilliant' prose) or weren't reading the criteria. |
|||
Morgan's main body of troopers raided and camped at [[New Salisbury, Indiana| New Salisbury]] that night while detachments raided and sacked [[Crandall, Indiana| Crandall]], [[Palmyra, Indiana| Palmyra]] and the surrounding countryside. Morgan resumed his northward march, destroying much of the town of [[Salem, Indiana|Salem]]. Fear gripped the capitol, and the militia began to form there to contest Morgan's advance. After Salem, however, Morgan turned east, raiding and skirmishing along this path and leaving Indiana through [[West Harrison, Indiana|West Harrison]] on July 13, thus ending Indiana's only military confrontation in the war.<ref name = ft343344/> |
|||
As a contributor who has put a lot of time and effort into trying to raise the standards of prose in the nominations, I thought that something needed to be done. When I comment on poor prose in nominations, I feel I need either to roll my sleeves up and fix it myself, or quote several examples and pull them apart; it's a lot of work. That is why I acted, and no one has since complained. I wouldn't mind if the italic highlighting in point 1 were softened to roman. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Aftermath=== |
|||
The Civil War had a big impact on the development of Indiana. Prior to the Civil war, the population was generally in the south of the state where easy access to the [[Ohio River]] provided a convenient means to export products and agriculture to New Orleans to be sold. The war closed the Mississippi to traffic for nearly four years and led to continued disruption to it for years afterwards, forcing Indiana to find other means to export its produce. This led to a population shift to the north where the state came to rely more on the great lakes and the railroad for exports<ref>Gray, p. 202</ref><ref>Peckham, p. 76</ref> |
|||
(Bishonen, thanks for your message; I've interpolated my responses into it:) |
|||
Before the war, [[New Albany, Indiana| New Albany]] was the largest city in the state mainly because of its river contacts with the South.<ref>Peckham, p. 65</ref> Over half of Hoosiers with over $100,000 lived in New Albany.<ref>Miller, p. 48</ref> During the war, the trade with the South came to a halt, and after the war much of Indiana saw New Albany as too friendly to the South. The city never regained its stature, remaining a city of 40,000 with only its early-Victorian [[Mansion Row Historic District|Mansion-Row]] buildings to remind itself of its boom period.<ref>Findling, p. 53</ref> |
|||
Tony, I appreciate your good intentions and the urgency that made you expand the instructions. But I do think it's bloat to add specifics on one aspect of one of the (many) criteria, right next to the link to the criteria themselves. Nominators need to either make very sure to click on that link, or else several other specially important points need to be mentioned up front (which I'm against, as creating more bloat). I'm pretty sure lack of references, for instance, is as frequent a problem as lack of copyediting. |
|||
Indiana's Senators [[Schuyler Colfax]] and Oliver Morton (who was elected senator after his final term as governor) were among the supporters of radical punishment on the south during the debate on [[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction]]. They had not supported Lincoln and President [[Andrew Johnson]]'s plan for reintegrating the southern states. Both senators voted in favor of [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson|Johnson's impeachment]], Morton was especially disappointed when they failed to remove him.<ref>Lockridge, pp. 325–332</ref><ref>Woollen, p. 138</ref> Senator Colfax was elected [[Vice President of the United States]] in 1868 and served under President [[Ulysses S. Grant]]. |
|||
:I've since pruned some of the additions in response to your comments, but your objection, I suspect, still applies to what remains. Lack of references, image copyright issues, and poor prose appear to the be most common complaints of reviewers. However, fixing poor prose, in my view, usually takes considerably more time, effort and skill than fixing the first two problems (not always, but usually). Poor prose is a more consistent problem, and is what will stick out when Wikipedia parades featured articles to the world. That's why I'm arguing that it be emphasised, and singled out for extra mention in the instructions. |
|||
==Post-War era== |
|||
[[Image:Soldiers Sailors Mon IN 1898.jpg|thumb |right |The [[Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument (Indianapolis)|Circle]] in Indianapolis, circa 1898.]] |
|||
{{USCensusPop |
|||
|1870 = 1680637 |
|||
|1880 = 1978301 |
|||
|1890 = 2192404 |
|||
|1900 = 2516462 |
|||
|1910 = 2700876 |
|||
|1920 = 2930390 |
|||
|1930 = 3238503 |
|||
|footnote =<ref name = census/> |
|||
}} |
|||
Indiana changed dramatically after the Civil War. Ohio River ports had been stifled by an embargo to the Confederate South, and never fully recovered leading the south into an economic decline.<ref>Gray, p. 202</ref> By contrast, northern Indiana experienced an economic boom when [[natural gas]] was discovered in the 1880s, which directly contributed to the rapid growth of cities such as [[Gas City, Indiana|Gas City]], [[Hartford City, Indiana|Hartford City]], and [[Muncie, Indiana|Muncie]] where a glass industry developed to utilize the cheap fuel.<ref>Gray, pp. 187–188, 202, 207</ref> The boom lasted until the early 1900s, when the gas supplies ran low. This began northern Indiana's industrialization and ultimately led to Indiana becoming part of the [[Rust Belt]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforhistory.org/indiana_history_main8.html|publisher=Indiana Center For History|title=Indiana History Chapter Eight|accessdate=2008-05-24}}</ref><ref>Phillips, p. 252</ref> |
|||
Perhaps you might edit the criteria page further instead (I see you already did), to emphasize the need for copyediting? |
|||
In 1876, [[chemist]] [[Colonel Eli Lilly|Eli Lilly]], an Union colonel during the Civil War, founded [[Eli Lilly and Company]], a [[pharmaceutical]] company. His initial innovation of gelatin-coating for pills led to a rapid growth of the company that eventually grew into Indiana's largest corporation, and one of the largest corporations in the world.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?sedol=2516152| title=Eli Lilly & Company (NYSE: LLY) At A Glance| publisher=[[Forbes]]| accessdate=2008-05-30}}</ref><ref group = n> According to Forbes, Eli Lilly & Co. was the 229th largest company in the world in 2007.</ref> Over the years, the corporation saw the development of many widely used drugs, including [[insulin]], and becoming the first company to mass produce [[penicillin]]. The company's many advances made Indiana the leading state in production and development of medicines.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lilly.com/about/milestones.html|title=''Milestones in Medical Research|publisher=lilly.com|author=Eli Lilly and Company |accessdate=2008-05-24}}</ref> |
|||
:I've already significantly simplified the wording and formatting of the criteria, and shifted greater emphasis onto prose by moving it into first position (that was one of the few substantive changes in meaning that I made). I don't know what more you can say in the one place than 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. That's why I thought another signpost elsewhere was called for. |
|||
Charles Conn returned to [[Elkhart, Indiana|Elkhart]] after the Civil War and established [[C. G. Conn|C.G. Conn Ltd.]], a manufacturer of musical instruments.<ref>FWP, p. 290</ref> The company's innovation in band instruments made Elkhart an important center of the music world, and it became a base of Elkhart's economy for decades. Nearby [[South Bend, Indiana|South Bend]] experienced continued growth following the Civil War, and became a large manufacturing city. [[Gary, Indiana|Gary]] was founded in 1906 by the [[United States Steel Corporation]] as the home for its new plant.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gary.lib.in.us/historyofgary.htm|title=''History of Gary|publisher=www.gary.lib.in.us|accessdate=2008-05-23}}</ref> |
|||
Though I also stand by my remark about it looking condescending to tell everybody to go get somebody else to copyedit before nominating. Wouldn't you agree that there are articles that are good to go directly from the hands of the author/s/..? |
|||
During the postwar era Indiana became a critical swing state that often decided which party controlled the Presidency. The national parties each vied for Hoosier support and a Hoosier was included in all but one election between 1880 and 1924.<ref>Gray, pp. 171-172</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://elections.harpweek.com/1888/Overview-1888-4.htm 1888 Overview|pages= p. 4|title= [[Harper's Weekly]]|accessdate=2008-10-11}}</ref> Indiana Representative [[William Hayden English]] was nominated for Vice-President and ran with Winfield Scott Hancock in the [[United States presidential election, 1880|1880 election]]. Their ticket lost to [[James A. Garfield]] and [[Chester A. Arthur]].<ref>Gray 1977, p. 23</ref> In 1884, former Indiana Governor [[Thomas A. Hendricks]] was elected Vice-President of the United States. He served until his death on November 25, 1885 under President [[Grover Cleveland]].<ref>Gray 1977, p. 82</ref> |
|||
:I'm not sure that I agree; I'm a professional editor, yet on occasions I've hired someone else to edit my text when it really matters. It's the 'fresh pair of eyes' that just about all text needs, even text that has been produced by good writers. Perhaps we could soften the wording ('strongly recommended'?). |
|||
In 1888, Indiana Senator [[Benjamin Harrison]], grandson of territorial Governor [[William Henry Harrison]], was elected [[President of the United States]] and served one term. [[Fort Benjamin Harrison]] was named in his honor. He remains the only U.S. President from Indiana. Indiana Senator [[Charles W. Fairbanks]] was elected Vice-President in 1904, serving under President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] until 1913.<ref>Gray 1977, p. 118</ref> Fairbanks made another run for Vice-President with [[Charles Evans Hughes]] in 1912, but their ticket lost to [[Woodrow Wilson]] and Indiana Governor [[Thomas R. Marshall]], who served as Vice-President from 1913 until 1921.<ref>Gray 1977, p. 162</ref> |
|||
My overriding concern is that the instructions be kept simple and practical. Following Bishonen's Law, they will naturally tend to be always growing, as people add their own special concerns over time, while hardly anybody ever removes anything. I know Raul654 agrees with me in general, in fact it's Raul's ruthless pruning that has kept the FAC instructions so nice and simple compared to those of Peer Review. It wasn't very long since you made the additions, so it's possible that no one complained because no one noticed yet; the longer the instructions are, the more cursorily they'll probably be read, that's the problem. |
|||
The administration of Governor [[James D. Williams]] proposed the construction of the fourth state capitol building in 1878. The third state capitol building was razed and the new one was constructed on the same site. Two million dollars was appropriated for construction and the new building and it was completed in 1888. The building was still in use in 2008.<ref>Gray, p. 184</ref> |
|||
:I agree with all of these points, but I'd like to see the additional clause in point 1 retained. |
|||
The [[Panic of 1893]] had a severe negative effect on the Hoosier economy when a number of factories closed and several railroads declared bankruptcy. The [[Pullman Strike]] of 1894 hurt the [[Chicago]] area and coalminers in southern Indiana declared a strike. Hard times were not limited to industry; farmers also felt a financial pinch from falling prices. The economy began to recover when war broke out in Europe creating a higher demand for American goods.<ref>Phillips, p. 38</ref> |
|||
[[User:Tony1|Tony]] 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Post-war Indiana saw several major criminal events. A group of brothers from [[Seymour, Indiana|Seymour]], who had served in the Civil War, formed the [[Reno Gang]], the first outlaw gang in the United States.<ref name = f107>Funk , pp. 104—107</ref> The Reno Gang, named for the brothers, terrorized Indiana and the Midwest for several years. They were responsible for the first [[train robbery]] in the United States which occurred near Seymour on October 6, 1866. Their actions inspired a host of other outlaw gangs who copied their work, beginning several decades of high-profile train robberies. Pursued by detectives from [[Pinkerton Detective Agency]], most of the gang was captured in 1868 and [[lynching|lynched]] by vigilantes.<ref name = f107/> Other notorious Hoosiers also flourished in the post-war years, including [[Belle Gunness]], an infamous "[[List of women who have murdered their husbands|black widow]]" serial killer. She is believed to have killed more than twenty people, most of them men, between 1881 and her suspected murder in 1908.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/gunness/12.html|title=Belle Gunness, the notorious black widow: Executioner |last=Geringer|first=Joseph|work=[[Crime Library]]|accessdate=2008-07-31}}</ref> |
|||
==Example FAs by type== |
|||
==Twentieth century== |
|||
Over at [[Wikipedia:Featured article review]], I've begun a list of article types (e.g. albums, architectural styles, orders of chivalry) and their featured articles. The goal is to encourage the standardization of layout and formatting between articles on similar subjects. There's a lot of variation in featured articles, some of it for good reason, but a lot of it would be better off standardized. Is anybody here interested in working on this? [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 18:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:Flag of Indiana.svg|thumb|The [[Flag of Indiana|state flag]] of Indiana was officially adopted in 1917.]] |
|||
== Font size in references/notes sections == |
|||
Although industry was rapidly expanding throughout the northern part of the state, Indiana remained largely rural at the turn of the century with growing population of 2.5 million. Like much of the rest of the American [[Midwest]], Indiana's exports and job providers remained largely agricultural until after [[World War I]]. Indiana's developing industry, backed by an educated population, low taxes, easy access to transportation, and business friendly government, led Indiana to grow into one of the leading manufacturing states by the mid-1920s.<ref>Gray, p. 186</ref> |
|||
In many of "Today's featured articles", (e.g. [[Planetary habitability]]) the font size in the notes and references is reduced. I generally consider featured articles as "best practices" and therefore would go along with the reduced font size in notes and references. But, is this practice specified somewhere in the [[WP:MOS|Manual of style]] or in some other guideline? Thanks. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>[[User:AudeVivere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]]</small>) 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
In 1907, during the administration of Governor [[Frank Hanly]], Indiana became the first state in the Union to adopt [[eugenics]] legislation, but was until ruled unconstitutional by the [[Supreme Court of Indiana]] in 1921.<ref>{{cite web|title=''Williams v. Smith'' 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921|url=http://www.bioethics.iupui.edu/Eugenics/SMith%20vs%20Williams.pdf|publisher=Indiana University|accessdate=2008-05-22|format=PDF}}</ref> A revised eugenics law was passed in 1927, and it remained in effect until 1974.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indiana.edu/~ocmhp/2007/03-09/story.php?id=1227|title=Hoosier state led with involuntary sterilization laws|author=Cindy Aisen Fox||year=2007|pubsliher=[[Indiana University]]|accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref> Hanley was also a spokesman in the [[temperance movement]]. [[Prohibition in the United States|Prohibition]] took effect in 1920 and northern Indiana saw some involvement with [[Al Capone]] and others in the underground [[Rum-running|bootlegging]]. Prohibition remained in effect until 1933.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1124913901.html|publisher= State University of New York|title=''Temperance Movement Groups and Leaders in the U.S.''|author=Hanson, David J. Ph.D.|accessdate=2008-05-17}} (site funded by the [[Distilled Spirits Council of the United States]])</ref> |
|||
:No, I don't think it's specified anywhere - it's just something that developed as a result of articles with very long references sections (a common trait of featured articles). Using small font means that the article text isn't dominated by the references section. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>[[User:AudeVivere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]]</small>) 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:What does ''dominated'' mean in an environment where you are scrolling through a document of arbitrary length and there are good guidelines for the ordering of the material? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:McFarlan Wreck Indianapolis 1912.jpg|thumb|right|Driver [[Mel Marquette]]'s wrecked [[McFarlan Automobile|McFarlan]] racing car at the [[1912 Indianapolis 500]]]] |
|||
::It means that for reasons of style the referenes section shouldn't be longer than the article itself, or even similiar in length. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Succinct? == |
|||
The [[Indianapolis Motor Speedway]] complex was built in 1909, inaugurating a new era in history. The automobile was a new invention and Indianapolis rivaled Detroit in auto manufacturing for several years. The speedway offered a venue for auto companies to show off their products. Europeans and American companies competed to build the fastest automobile in hopes of winning at the track. The [[Indianapolis 500]] quickly became the standard in auto racing.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com/history/|title=History of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway :: Where America Learned To Race®|publisher=IMS LLC|accessdate=2008-05-19}}</ref> |
|||
I replaced one of the succinct words with concise, just because I found it odd to have such an unusual, but clever, word used twice. [[User:Deckiller|Deckiller]] 04:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===World War I=== |
|||
[[Image:Indywarmem.jpg|thumb|right|[[Indiana World War Memorial Plaza]]]] |
|||
== Additional requirement for articles dealing with a historical subject to be featured == |
|||
Although the majority of Hoosiers supported the [[Allies of World War I|Entente Powers]] in the early years of World War I, a significant number of [[German-American]] and [[Irish-Americans]] supported neutrality or the [[Central Powers]]. Influential Hoosiers who opposed involvement in the war included [[Eugene V. Debs]], [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[John W. Kern]], and even [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] [[Thomas R. Marshall]].<ref>Phillips, pp. 592, 605</ref> Supporters of the Alliance and military preparedness included [[James Whitcomb Riley]] and [[George Ade]]. Most of the opposition dissipated when the United States officially declared war, but some teachers lost their jobs on suspicion of disloyalty,<ref>Phillips, pp. 595, 600</ref> and public schools could no longer teach in German.<ref>Phillips, p. 388.</ref><ref group =n> "By law all work in the elementary schools was to be done in English. Courses in the German language had been authorized by the General Assembly as early as 1869 in any public school in which twenty-five parents requested them."</ref> |
|||
Under 2b we learn that a featured article must be ""comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details." However, many articles on historical subjects have been passed without having a [[historiography]] section. Given that disciplinary history demands a historiographical consciousness, yet does not resolve to distinct "empirical" demonstrations as the sciences claim, an encyclopedic entry on a historical subject must discuss historiography in order to be featured. For an example of a pro-forma of what a historiography section should look like see [[History of the world]] or [[Katyn massacre]]. I would appreciate others comments on whether this should be considered a requirement for articles on historical subjects to be featured. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The [[Indiana Army National Guard|Indiana National Guard]] was federalized during the War, and many units sent to Europe. To replace the missing guard a new militia called the Liberty Guard was formed in 1910, it was renamed the [[Indiana Guard Reserve]] in 1920.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mdisdf.org/|title=Indiana Guard Reserve History|publisher=[[Indiana Guard Reserve]]|accessdate=2008-10-13}}</ref> The militia was called out several times to quell riots and disturbances in 1918 and 1919. Indiana provided 130,670 troops during the war; a majority of them were drafted.<ref name = phillips610611>Phillips, p. 610–611</ref> Over 3,000 of these died, many from [[influenza]] and [[pneumonia]].<ref name = phillips610611/> To honor the Hoosier veterans of the war the state began construction of the [[Indiana World War Memorial Plaza|Indiana World War Memorial]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/iwm/2582.htm|publisher=IN.gov|author=Indiana Historical Bureau|title=''Indiana World War II Memorial''|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> Hoosier soldiers were involved in operations on the German and Italian fronts. [[Major]] [[Samuel Woodfill]], a native of [[Jefferson County, Indiana|Jefferson County]], became the most decorated soldier of any nation to fight in the war, receiving the [[Congressional Medal of Honor]], the [[Croix de Guerre]] and admited to the [[Légion d'honneur]] by France, the [[Meriot di Guerra Cross]] from Italy, and the [[Order of Prince Danilo I|Cross of Prince Danilo]] from [[Montenegro]], among numerous others.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/woodfil.htm|title=Samuel Woodfill|publisher=[[Arlington National Cemetery]]|accessdate=2008-08-09}}</ref> |
|||
:I don't think that's appropriate for ''all'' historical subjects. Consider that, per [[WP:NOR]], any discussion of historiography must ''itself'' be cited from appropriate sources. For contentious or heavily studied periods, this may be possible; but for subjects where the material about the subject is itself fairly limited, finding material about the material about the subject will be next to impossible, and quite unenlightening to boot. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===Twenties and the Great Depression=== |
|||
{{see also|Indiana Klan}} |
|||
::Its still possible to indicate the seminal text, "Prior to Johansen (1974) no scholarly historical investigations were conducted into Boot Making in the Upper Hunter Valley. Johansen and subsequent scholars have followed principles developed in the fields of [[history of the firm]] and [[local history]]." Now some subjects in the past, Henry Miller for example, aren't historical in this sense. But articles claiming to be a "History of X" or dealing with a subject of central importance to history ("Causes of the First World War" for example) really should include this to qualify under 2b.[[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The war-time economy provided a boom to Indiana's industry and agriculture, which led to more [[urbanization]] throughout the 1920s. By 1925 Indiana had passed a great milestone: more workers were employed in industry than in agriculture. Indiana's greatest industries were [[steel]] production, [[iron]], automobiles, and railroad cars.<ref name = ihc9>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforhistory.org/indiana_history_main9.html|publisher= Indiana Center for History|title= Indiana History Chapter Nine|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> |
|||
:::Then we can object on an ad-hoc basis. In other words, objecting because an article lacks historiographical discussion ''and'' the subject is such that this discussion would be meaningful is fine; objecting to ''all'' historical articles that lack such discussion (or in which the discussion is present in separate articles about the individual works cited) is excessive. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* I have no idea what a [[historiography]] is and I read that article, so I need no need, not a reason anyways, and on my article on FA that was opposed for it is rather hard to make one. Thank you --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Scandal erupted across the state in 1925 when it was discovered that over half the seats in the General Assembly were controlled by the [[Klu Klux Klan]]. During the 1925 General Assembly session [[Grand Dragon]] [[D. C. Stephenson]] boasted "I am the law in Indiana."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforhistory.org/indiana_history_main7.html|title= Indiana History Chapter Seven|publisher=Northern Indiana Center for History|accessdate=2008-10-07}}</ref> Stephenson was convicted for the [[homicide|murder]] of [[Madge Oberholtzer]] that year and sentenced to [[life in prison]]. After Governor [[Edward Jackson]], who Stephenson helped elect, refused to pardon him, Stephenson began to name many of his co-conspirators leading to a string of arrests and indictments against leading Hoosiers including the governor, mayor of Indianapolis, the attorney general, and many others. The crackdown effectively rendered the Klan powerless.<ref>Lutholtz, p. 43,83}</ref> |
|||
:I agree with Krill and Aranda - I don't see any purpose to this requirement. Articles are required to have (good) sources; I don't think a seperate section discussing the sources should be required for all (or even most) articles. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree again with objections above against the historiographical section. The thing is that in analyzing sources (which again, I'm not too understanding of the subject like [[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]]), but by looking at the article for [[historiography]] such a topic seems completely digressive. You're analyzing a source(s), which is completely off the direct topic of writing about the history of x. That can be included in a sub-page, but otherwise is unnecessary for being comprehensive. The other thing you have to realize is that the history of x includes the ''entire'' history of x, not just a single event (like those above), so that it is difficult to actually find one source to analyze using historiographical techniques. Plus, such a change would require every single article under the history section of the [[WP:FA]] page to be removed and redone, which is certainly not practial. Unless your sources are very likely to be POV, like the one in [[Katyn massacre]] is (note all of the citation neededs), there is no real point to including historiography. [[User:AndyZ|AndyZ]] 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:History isn't the (alleged) instances of the past, but the systematic recording and storytelling of the past as done by people. All claims in history are dependent upon the quality of the work produced by historians, see for example the almost continuous series of fallacies produced by journalists attempting to write history from their recollection. Any attempt to state that an article is encyclopedic must then be in line with either the seminal texts produced in a disciplinary context of history, or the primary disputes developed by historians in their analysis of the past. This means that to be complete and "cite sources" an article on a "history of x" must demonstrate that it lies within the disciplinary discourse of "x": it must demonstrate the historiography which produced the article. This can be as simple as "The seminal work produced by E.P. Thompson has dictated the study of the emergence of a working class in England." or as complex as "Initial studies of the causes of the first world war denoted primarily diplomatic causes(Foo, Bar); this was followed by a tendency to analyse the causes in terms of economics(Baz, Bok); but in recent years attention has turned to the role of popular sentiment(Bik, Bang)." |
|||
:Failure to do this is like allowing pseudo-science into the wiki without a criticism of it as pseudo-science. Due to the failrue to have a historiography section most articles claiming to be a "history of x" are actually folk- or media- pseudo-histories. A pseudo-history certainly doesn't meet my criteria of comprehensiveness under 2b. And if this is the case for currently featured articles, then our currently featured articles are more an indicator of our status as bad editors: especially when we use the example of a mass of past errors to defend a current error. |
|||
:That's why articles on a historical topic should have a historiography section to be featured.[[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I'll remind you that we're writing encyclopedia articles, not dissertations. While in some isolated cases (generally for broad or contentious topics) a discussion of sources is appropriate, this is not the case for most historical articles, which tend to focus on fairly narrow (and rather obscure) topics. We are explicitly '''forbidden''' to declare something the "seminal work" unless we can cite said opinion to an outside source; given that such limitations make a proper analysis of documents (which is all you'll have if there are no major disputes over the topic) all but impossible, I see no reason to require a historiography section as a mere formality. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[John Dillinger]], a native of Indianapolis, began his streak of bank robberies in Indiana and the Midwest during the 1920s. He was captured in 1924 and served a prison sentence in the [[Indiana State Prison]] until he was paroled in 1933. Returning to crime, he was returned to prison the same year, but escaped with the help of his gang. His gang was responsible for the theft of over $300,000 and multiple murders.<ref name = dillenger>{{cite web|url=http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/dillinger/dillinger.htm|publisher=[[Federal Bureau of Investigation]]|title=Famous Cases: John Dillinger|accessdate=2008-07-31}}</ref> He was eventually killed by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] on July 22, 1934 in Chicago.<ref name = dillenger/> |
|||
:::A historiography section would be a POV section and would be a section of [[WP:NOT|Original thought]]. By considering the quality of the historians themselves, you either must have bad and unreliable sources, which means that those sources should not have been used and that there would be no necessity for the historiography section. [[User:Raul654]] removed the historiography section in [[Katyn massacre]], deeming it quite unnecessary. Look at all of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katyn_massacre&diff=37521062&oldid=37520678 in the section before it was removed]; there are so many because all of it is unsubstantiable and is original thought. By judging the ability of the historian, you are making POV comments in the article directly, and such should instead be discussed on the talk page (like it was for [[Katyn massacre]]. Again, a historiographical section would also be digressive, but it does not directly pertain to the subject of ''history of x'', but instead is a discussion of the sources for ''history of x'', which can then be covered in a subpage. |
|||
During the 1930s, Indiana, like the rest of the nation, became caught up in the [[Great Depression]]. The economic downturn had a wide-ranging negative impact on Indiana. Much of the movement toward urbanization in the 1920s was lost. The situation was aggravated by the [[Dust Bowl]] which caused an influx of immigrants from the west. The administration of Governor [[Paul V. McNutt]] struggled to build from scratch a state funded welfare system to help the overwhelmed private charities. During his administration, spending and taxes were both cut drastically in response to the depression and the state government was completely reorganized. McNutt also ended prohibition in the state and enacted the state's first income tax. On several occasions, he declared martial law to put an end to worker strikes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.countyhistory.com/doc.gov/037.htm|title= Paul V. McNutt|publisher=County History Preservation Society|author=Ronald Branson|accessdate=2008-05-24}}</ref> |
|||
:::By using words like "which claims…", you are making direct inferences about the credibility of the author of the source(s), which is digressive and shouldn't appear on the article anyway. If it was used as a source, great, discuss it on the talk page (which is why it is there) or create a subpage. Besides, by including a historiography section, you are claiming directly that the articles' contents are not infallable/dependable, which then fails it for FA critera 2(c). 2(b) requires that the article be sufficiently comprehensive such that it doesn't miss any major parts of the article... by my comments above, a historiographical section is not a major section of the article by being digressive and superflous. [[User:AndyZ|AndyZ]] 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::A historiography section is not necessarily original research - many areas of history have had information on their historiographies published even if just as part of a more general work. We could quite safely cite these. I think these sections are more applicable to very specific articles, though, dealing with one incident. I don't think we should have a featured article on (say) the [[February Revolution]] that didn't make some reference to the different theories about what caused it, for example. I was pointed to this discussion from [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Portugal (1777-1834)|WP:FAC/History of Portugal (1777-1834)]], though, and I think that is too broad a topic for a historiography section - it would have to be several sections. If there was a future article on [[The independence of Brazil]], for example, then I can see the value of a historiography section there.--[[User:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry]] [[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|blossom]] [[Special:Contributions/Cherry blossom tree|tree]] 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The problem with citing historiographies to write such a section is that it creates a circular situation. Which historiographer(s) should we choose? How do we know that the historiographers cited don't have their own biases? Do we need to cite historiographer-ographers as well? I realize this situation is absurd, but without violating [[WP:NOR]], I see no other way a historiography section would work. [[User:The Catfish|The Catfish]] 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::We'd presumably go about it the same way as we would citing historians, no? I can't see how it would be any different to writing the rest of the article.--[[User:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry]] [[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|blossom]] [[Special:Contributions/Cherry blossom tree|tree]] 10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, but if we need to cite historiographers to verify the historians, wouldn't we therefore need to cite historiographer-ographers to verify the historiographers? I can see the value of a historiography section in an article which is forced to depend on only semi-reliable sources, but in the absence of a significant sourcing dispute, I see little value from a blanket historiography requirement. [[User:The Catfish|The Catfish]] 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::We're not citing them to verify the historians, though. Maybe we're using the word to mean different things; historiography (in the sense I'm using it) simply means summarising the writings of various historians for its own ends. In an article on secularisation in western Europe, for example, we could say that the orthodox view was that it was a gradual process beginning with the industrial revolution but that Callum Brown challenged this view by suggesting that it was a rapid process that started in the sixties when women moved away from religion and so on. Obviously there shouldn't be a blanket requirement, but I can see how it'd be useful in some articles.--[[User:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry]] [[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|blossom]] [[Special:Contributions/Cherry blossom tree|tree]] 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I've decided to raise this issue, along with the more general issues of what we should expect in a History article, on Manual Of Style's talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#History_Articles], can I sugest moving this conversation there to centralise efforts. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
During the Great Depression, [[unemployment]] exceeded 25% statewide.[[Southern Indiana]] was particularly hard hit where unemployment topped 50% during the worst years.<ref name = ihc9/> The [[Works Progress Administration]] (WPA) began its operations in Indiana in July 1935. By October of that year, 74,708 Hoosiers were employed by the agency. In 1940, there were still 64,700 working for agency.<ref name = ihc9/> The majority of these workers were employed to improve the state's roads, bridges, flood control projects, water treatment plants, some indexed libraries, and even create murals for post offices—every community had a project to work on.<ref name = ihc9/> |
|||
== Featured Music Project == |
|||
During the 1930s many of Indiana's prominent businesses collapsed, several railroads went bankrupt, and numerous banks folded.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indianahistory.org/ihs_press/web_publications/railroad/keenan.html|title= ''The Fight for Survival: The Cincinnati & Lake Erie and the Great Depression''|author=Keenan, Jack |publisher=Indiana Historical Society|accessdate=2008-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indianahistory.org/hbr/business_pdf/star_bank_eastern.pdf|title=''Star Bank, National Association, Eastern Indiana''|publisher=Indiana Historical Society|accessdate=2008-05-21|format=PDF}}</ref> Manufacturing came to an abrupt halt or was severely cut back due the dwindling demand for products. The depression continued to negatively affect Indiana until World War II, and the effects continued to be felt for many years thereafter.<ref>Gray, p. 269</ref> |
|||
I'd like to announce the opening of the [[Wikipedia:Featured Music Project|Featured Music Project]], an attempt to encourage and facilitate successful featured article candidacies and peer reviews for articles on musicians and bands. You can help by [[Wikipedia:Featured Music Project/Evaluation|evaluating]] articles, or by working on the articles that are [[Wikipedia:Featured Music Project/Status|already close to being ready]] for FAC. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===World War II=== |
|||
[[Image:Freeman Field Mutiny.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Arrested African-American officers of the [[447th Air Expeditionary Group|477th Bombardment Group]] at Freeman Field, Indiana, await transport to [[Godman Field]], [[Kentucky]], April 1945.]] |
|||
== "Should not contain copyright violations?" == |
|||
The regional economy began to recover going into World War II. Although the WPA continued to employ many Hoosiers, unemployment steadily declined as the depression gave way to the war-time economy.<ref>Gray, p. 290</ref> |
|||
[[University of Arkansas]], in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Arkansas&oldid=37920869#History_and_Founding the version nominated for FA], contained a "History and Founding" section consisting entirely of three paragraphs copied almost verbatim from [http://www.uark.edu/rd_vcad/urel/publications/profile/2003/525.htm this page] on the University of Arkansas website. |
|||
Indiana participated in the [[Total War]] mobilization of the nations economy and resources. Domestically, the state produced munitions in an [[Indiana Army Ammunition Plant|army plant]] near [[Sellersburg, Indiana|Sellersburg]]. The [[P-47 Thunderbolt|P-47]] fighter-plane was manufactured in [[Evansville, Indiana|Evansville]] at [[Republic Aviation]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2213 |publisher=National Museum of the Air Force|title= Fact Sheet|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> The steel produced in northern Indiana was used in [[tanks]], [[battleships]], and [[submarines]]. Other war related materials were produced throughout the state. Indiana's military bases were activated, with areas such as [[Camp Atterbury]] reaching historical peaks in activity.<ref>Gray, p. 353–354</ref> An Air Force base was constructed near [[Seymour, Indiana]] and was the location of the [[Freeman Field Mutiny]]. The mutiny led to the [[racial integration]] of the [[United States Army|United States military]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nps.gov/pwso/honor/tuskegee.htm|title=The Freeman Field Mutiny|publisher=NPS.gov|accessdate=2008-05-18}}</ref> |
|||
Should [[What is a featured article]] say explicitly that featured articles ought not to contain copyright violations? |
|||
The population was generally supportive of the war efforts and many men enlisted in the army and navy voluntarily. The state contributed many young men to fight abroad, nearly 400,000 Hoosiers enlisted or were drafted into the war.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforhistory.org/indiana_history_main10.html|publisher= Indiana Center for History|title=''Indiana History Chapter Ten''|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> More than 11,783 Hoosiers died in the conflict and another 17,000 were wounded. Hoosiers served in all the major theaters of the war.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/ww2/navy-casualties/indiana.html|publisher= National Archives|title= Indiana Naval, Marine, & Coast Guard Casualties|author=United States Navy|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/ww2/army-casualties/indiana.html|title=Indiana Army & Air Force Casualties|United States Army|publisher=National Archives|accessdate=2008-05-21}}</ref> Their sacrifice was honored by additions to the World War Memorial in Indianapolis, which was not finished until 1965.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/iwm/2582.htm|publisher=IN.gov|title=Indiana World War Memorial|accessdate=2008-05-17}}</ref> |
|||
I'm not sure whether or not I'm joking. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===Modern Indiana=== |
|||
:You are. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC). |
|||
{{USCensusPop |
|||
:::Oh, OK. Thanks for helping me decide. Well, in that case, nothing needs to be done. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
|1940 = 3427796 |
|||
|1950 = 3934224 |
|||
|1960 = 4662498 |
|||
|1970 = 5193669 |
|||
|1980 = 5490224 |
|||
|1990 = 5544159 |
|||
|2000 = 6080485 |
|||
|estyear = 2007 |
|||
|estimate = 6345289 |
|||
|estref= <ref name = census/> |
|||
}} |
|||
The end of World War II saw Indiana returned to the pre-depression levels of production. Industry again became the major employer, a trend that accelerated into the 1960s. The urbanization during the 1950s and 1960s years led to a large growth in the state's urban centers with towns and cities like [[Clarksville, Indiana|Clarksville]] dramatically increasing in population. The auto, steel, and pharmaceutical industries topped Indiana's major businesses. Indiana's population continued to grow during the years after the war, passing five million by the 1970 census.<ref>Haynes, pp. 319–333}</ref> In the 1960s, there were several significant developments in the state. During the administration of [[Matthew E. Welsh]] the state adopted its first sales tax of two percent. The new sales taxed dramatically increased revenues to the state and spawned a host of state projects. Welsh also worked with the General Assembly to pass the Indiana Civil Rights Bill.<ref>Gray, pp. 391–392</ref> |
|||
:It would be kind of like saying "Featured Articles should not contain Libel." Some things fall under common-sense. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Beginning in 1970 a series of amendments to the state constitution was proposed, several were adopted and the the [[Indiana Court of Appeals]] was created and the method of selecting justices on the courts was altered.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/history.html| title=History and Origins|author=Indiana Historical Bureau| publisher=IN.gov|accessdate=2008-06-02}}</ref><ref group=n>The amendments created the [[Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission|Judicial Nominating Commission]]</ref> Term limits were adjusted for the Governor, allowing him to serve consecutive terms. The [[1973 oil crisis]] created a recession that hurt the automotive industry in Indiana. Companies like [[Delco Electronics]] and [[Delphi (auto parts)|Delphi]] began a long series of downsizing that contributed to high unemployment rates in manufacturing in [[Anderson, Indiana|Anderson]], [[Muncie, Indiana|Muncie]], and [[Kokomo, Indiana|Kokomo]]. The trend continued until the 1980s when the national and state economy began to recover.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1992/02/art2exc.htm|title=Auto industry jobs in the 1980's: a decade of transition|author=Singleton, Christopher J. |publisher=Unites State Bureau of Labor Statistics|accessdate=2008-05-23}}</ref> |
|||
::Bish and Bunchofgrapes took the words right out of my mouth. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Lists of common problems== |
|||
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. Quayle was the third U.S. Vice-President whose hometown was on [[Indiana State Road 9]], and the highway gained the nickname "Highway of Vice Presidents." |
|||
[[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] removed the links to [[User:Taxman/Featured article advice]] and [[User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them]], saying "userspace links are inappropriate from Wikipedia articles". Clearly links to userspace from actual articles would be inappropriate, but surely we can have links to useful information in userspace in wikispace, no? Quite a few things in wikispace started off in userspace... -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with ALoan on this point. However, I implore the main contributors to both of those pages to have them edited. They should be written in nothing less than excellent prose, and bloopers such as "editors that aren't aware" should be fixed promptly. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of the whole idea of FAs. Both pages require a careful run through by a good editor. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 12:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Central Indiana was struck by a [[June 2008 Midwest Flood#Indiana|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. |
|||
:That's why it's still userified in my case, though I suppose I should get off my assets and go fix it. But Matt's reasoning for removing them is specious, there's no policy against user pages on Wikipedia pages, and common sense would say to leave links to useful ones. Further, repeatedly removing them without discussion when people have added them back is innapropriate. But I'll finally go fix mine and move it to Wikipedia space if it's that big a deal. We could also have a discussion about creating a single article with expanded explanation of the criteria. For those editors that aren't familiar with how they are applied, the concise criteria probably aren't enough to know how to meet them. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Taxman, sorry to have been silent; I'll have a go at that text early March, when I'm freer from work obligations. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==See also== |
|||
:Yes, well, when you can. :) - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{portal|Indiana|Indiana state flag detail.jpg||150px|break=no|left=no}} |
|||
*[[History of Indianapolis]] |
|||
*[[Indiana Territory]] |
|||
*[[Indiana Historical Society]] |
|||
*[[Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures]] |
|||
*[[List of battles fought in Indiana]] |
|||
*[[List of Governors of Indiana]] |
|||
*[[List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana]] |
|||
*[[List of Registered Historic Places in Indiana]] |
|||
*[[List of State Historic Sites in Indiana]] |
|||
::My point of view is this: I wouldn't want someone to make edits to pages in my userpage (other than to my talk page or maybe a copyedit of my user page). If people are going to link to them from a Wikipedia article, then they had better be editable like anything else. Right? I'm going to ask the two of them if they mind letting everyone else take a crack at editing them mercilessly. If they do mind, then the links need to be removed. Right? [[User:Matt Yeager|<b><font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager</font></b>]] [[Special:Random|<b><font size="3" color="#B46611">♫</font></b>]] <font color="#00AA88">([[User_talk:Matt Yeager|<font color="#00AA88">Talk?</font>]])</font> 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
<div class="references-small"> |
|||
<references group=n/> |
|||
</div> |
|||
== Recent point added to the criteria == |
|||
== References== |
|||
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} |
|||
I agree entirely with the sentiment, but perhaps there should be discussion here before a substantive change is made to the criteria. (The wording is not entirely clear, either.) [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Sources== |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Allison, Harold |title=The Tragic Saga of the Indiana Indians |year= ©1986, Harold Allison |publisher=Graphic Design of Indiana |publisher=Turner Publishing Company, Paducah |isbn=0-9380-2107-9}} |
|||
:The addition was mine. That reason (which fits perfectly within the MoS, AFAICT) is invoked so frequently in the FAC page it ought to be listed there, I think. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Barnhart, John D. and Riker, Dorothy L. |title=Indiana to 1816. The Colonial Period.|year= ©1971|publisher= Indiana Historical Society|isbn= Society. ISBN 0-87195-109-6}} |
|||
::To me that's just part of good writing, so it's already said. There's lots of things the criteria in concise form can't expound on, so they don't. You can't fit every detail in them and still be concise. That's why I wrote my advice and Jengod wrote his, to expand in more detail how the criteria are applied. But I'm also not against having that in there, because it is one of the most common problems I see. What would become a serious instruction creep problem is if every objection at FAC were added as a line item to the criteria. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Carter, Harvey Lewis|title=The Life and Times of Little Turtle: First Sagamore of the Wabash.|year= ©1987|publisher= Urbana: University of Illinois Press|isbn= ISBN 0-252-01318-2}} |
|||
:::Obviously. That'd be ridiculous. It's just an explicitation attempted to reduce the amount of times we have to repeat it. After all, we can't make an objection that is not covered anywhere in the FA criteria. (e.g. the reference style) [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Cleaves, Freeman|title= Old Tippecanoe: William Henry Harrison and His Time|location New York|publisher= Scribner's|year= 1939}} |
|||
Taxman's right: of course the stubby para problem is irritating to reviewers, but so are other aspects of poor prose that occur just as frequently. Criterion 2a says it all and says nothing at the same time, which is the most practical solution. Spin-off pages are a good idea, given that the official criteria need to ration detail severely to retain their impact and simplicity. |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Dowd, Gregory Evans|title= A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745-1815|publisher=Johns Hopkins University |
|||
Press|location= Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University|year= 1992|isbn=0801842360}} |
|||
A related issue is that greater levels of detail are likely to be less universally agreed on than the basics. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 07:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book|author= [[Jacob Piatt Dunn|Dunn, Jacob Piatt]]|title=Indiana and Indianans| year=©1919|publisher=The American Historical Society|location=Chicago & New York|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=GmcPryCCxFIC&|volume=V.I}} |
|||
== Citations == |
|||
*{{cite book|author=[[William Hayden English|English, William Hayden]]|title=Conquest of the Country Northwest of the River Ohio, 1778–1783, and Life of Gen. George Rogers Clark|Volume= 2 volumes|location= Indianapolis|publisher= Bowen-Merrill|year= 1896}} |
|||
We should require use of the new [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php cite] format. It solves the problem of citations gravitating from their refrence point. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book|title=Indiana: A Guide to the Hoosier State|author= Federal Writers' Project |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8iFZ90Uw3jEC|isbn=160354013X|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|pages=p. 290|year=1941}} |
|||
:Considering previous discussions about references, I think "strongly encourage" would be a better choice of words than "require". In some articles, a list at the end of common references where many facts for the article were sourced is sufficient. [[User:Slambo|Slambo]] <small><font color="black">[[User talk:Slambo|(Speak)]]</font></small> 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: "In the event where refrences or footnotes are used, the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php cite] format is required" work? I'm not looking to require footnotes (I know, drama), rather require that any footnotes be in the new-cite format. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::: If there's really that much of a encouraged/required problem, that's fine. ref-note is a terrible, terrible system, which is prone to making previously featured articles have bad references sections (because they have so many of them, keeping them in place is hard). [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh, I agree with ''that'', but there is no official preference between Harvard, inotes, ref/note, cite, or indeed any other system, so long as references are there. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Findling, John ed.|title=''A History of New Albany, Indiana''|publisher= Indiana University Southeast|year= 2003}} |
|||
:::::As usual, Aloan steals the words right out of my mouth. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Heh - [[You are X and I claim my five pounds|Raul654 is my sock-puppet and claim my £5]]. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book|title=The Civil War; a Narrative, Red River to Appomattox|author=Foote, Shelby|publisher=Random House|year=1974|volume=III}} |
|||
::::::: Done - I've withdrawn the lot of my objections, but please let me note, for the record, strongly, that if there's no a compelling reason NOT to use the ref tags (example - currently broken for harvard refrences) as opposed to the ref-note templates, they are just better. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite book| author=Fowler, William M.|title=''Empires at War'' |year=©2005 |publisher=Walker & Company |location=104 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York |language=English |isbn=0802714110 }} |
|||
:[[Saffron]] uses an interesting combination of the <ref> style and the {{tl|Harv}} style. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book|title=''Hoosiers In The Civil War''|author=Funk, Arville L. |year=1967|isbn= 0962329258|publisher=Adams Press}} |
|||
== Featured Music Project == |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Funk, Arville L. |title=A Sketchbook of Indiana History|year=©1969, revised 1983|publisher=Christian Book Press|location=[[Rochester, Indiana]]}} |
|||
I'd like to invite everyone to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Featured Music Project]]. The Featured Music Project is an attempt to improve a large number of articles on musicians to make them ready to be a [[WP:FA|featured article]]. To sign up, put your name under one (or more) of the eight categories on the [[Wikipedia:Featured_Music_Project/Status#Participants|status page]], such as the discography, format and style or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for [[WP:FAC]], and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in the section you signed up for (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or on the FMP talk page. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book|title=An Illustrated History of the State of Indiana|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=YDIUAAAAYAAJ|author=Goodrich, De Witt C. & Tuttle, Charles Richard |year=1875|publisher=R. S. Peale & co.}} |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Gray, Ralph D|title=Gentlemen from Indiana: National Party Candidates,1836-1940|year=1977|isbn=1-885323-29-8|publisher=Indiana Historical Bureau}} |
|||
* {{cite book|title=''Indiana History: A Book of Readings''|author=Gray, Ralph D |isbn=025332629X|publisher=[[Indiana University]] Press|year=©1995|location=Indiana|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SlKbSuBQL-AC}} |
|||
*{{cite book|title=Life of Walter Quintin Gresham 1832-1895|url=Life of Walter Quintin Gresham 1832-1895|author=Gresham,Matilda |publisher=Rand McNally & company|year=1919}} |
|||
*{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=LxgVAAAAYAAJ&, |title=An Illustrated History of the State of Indiana|author= Haymond, William S|year=1879|publisher=S.L. Marrow & Co.|pages=181}} |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Haynes, Kingsley E. & Machunda , Zachary B. |title=''Economic Geography''|volume= 63, No. 4|year=1987|month=October} |
|||
*{{cite book|title=''Historic Indiana''|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ja-tjo3-FtwC|author=Levering, Julia Henderson|year=1909|publisher=G. P. Putnam's sons}} |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Jennings, Francis|title=The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire|year=1990|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|isbn= 0393303020}} |
|||
*{{cite book|title=''The Indian Heritage of America''|author=Josephy, Alvin M. |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Books|year=1991|isbn=0395573203}} |
|||
*{{cite book |author=Justice, Noel D. |title=Looking at Prehistory: Indiana's Hoosier National Forest Region, 12,000 B.C. to 1650 |publisher=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service |date=November 2006, Government Printing Office}} |
|||
*{{cite book| author=Law, Judge | title=''A Colonial History of Vincennes''|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VGYaAAAAMAAJ|publisher=Harvey, Mason & Co.|year=1858}} |
|||
*{{cite book|publisher=Harlow Pub. Corp|author=Lockridge, Ross F.|title=''The Story of Indiana''|year= 1951}} |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Lutholtz, M. William|year=199| title=Grand Dragon: D. C. Stephenson and the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana| location=West Lafayette, Indiana|publisher= Purdue University Press|isbn= 1557530467}} |
|||
*{{cite book| author=Miller, Harold V.|other=Industrial Development of New Albany, Indiana|title= ''Economic Geography''|year= 1938|publisher=Wiley}} |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Nevings, Allan|title=Ordeal of the Unions: A House Dividing 1852-1857|volume= V.II|year= ©1947 |publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|location= New York|isnb=0684104245}} |
|||
*{{cite book|author=Peckham, Howard Henry| title=Indiana: A History| year=©2003 |publisher=University of Illinois Press |isbn=0252071468| location=Indiana| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=s63ox8jH2hIC}} |
|||
*{{cite book|author= Phillips, Clifton J.|title=Indiana in Transition. The Emergence of an Industrial Commonwealth, 1880-1920|year= ©1968|publisher= Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana Historical Society|location= Indianapolis}} |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Pocock, Tom.|title=Battle for Empire. The very first world war 1756-63|year= ©1998|publisher= Michael O'Mara Books Limited|isbn=1840673249}} |
|||
*{{cite book|title=Stories of Indiana|author=Thompson, Maurice| year=1898| publisher=American Book Company|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WeEXAAAAIAAJ}}} |
|||
*{{cite book|title=''Indiana in the Civil War Era: 1850-1880''|author=Thornbrough, Emma |year=1991|isbn=0871950502|publisher=Indiana Historical Society}} |
|||
*{{cite book |author=Troyer, Byron L. |title=Yesterday's Indiana |year= ©1975 |publisher=E.A. Seemann Publishing, Inc., Miami, Florida |ISBN=0-9124-5855-0}} |
|||
* {{cite book|title=Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana|pages= 29|author=Woollen, William Wesley |year= ©1975|isbn=0405068964|publisher=Ayer Publishing|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=PCbZ8rS-84gC}} |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
{{Indiana|expanded}} |
|||
{{Indiana history}} |
|||
{{U.S. political divisions histories}} |
|||
[[Category:History of Indiana| ]] |
|||
[[Category:Indiana Territory]] |
|||
[[ja:インディアナ州の歴史]] |
|||
Revision as of 15:55, 13 October 2008
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Refactored to archives on 19:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No red links?
I wonder, shouldn't there be a (informal) criterion that featured article should contain no red links? I haven't noticed that some would have, until Caesar cipher, which has red link to pattern word. Samohyl Jan 18:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There's an informal policy that they shouldn't have an excessive number. As far as prohibiting it entirely, that would be a terrible idea - the whole idea of red links is to advertise articles we are lacking -- prohibiting red links would simply encourage people not to link the terms. →Raul654 18:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I concur strongly with Raul. Red links are what ultimately ecourage growth of the wiki (although I go to some length to eliminate them on the articles I work on - but by the expedient of creating content, rather than declining to link). That said, it is also true that too many red links tells me that an article exists in something of a vacuum, which is problematic for a featured article... A featured article should be sufficiently well linked to put it in an appropriate context. Fawcett5 19:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- <newbie>Me too!</newbie>. I don't think red links should be eliminated from FACs; rather, we should encourage editors to create articles (or at least good stubs) that fill in the necessary background information for articles. I've tried to follow this practice on articles that I create or edit (like the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad page to eliminate a red link on my Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad FAC). The presence of red links should not be a deterrent to featured status. slambo 19:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I think this would be a bad idea since it would discourage writing in topic areas that are now on the fringe of our coverage. A recent article I wrote is on the history of the Grand Canyon area. Other than not having a lead section, I’d say that it is a pretty darn good article. Yet it has many red links due to the fact that this article covers an area of history that is very poorly-covered in Wikipedia right now. Why should this article be denied FA status due to a lack of related articles? --mav 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Same story with USS Missouri: Me and B have been overhauling the article alot in the past eight or so weeks, but the net result of that has been a sharp increase in red links; mostly their locations that I have never been to. The discussion on the 1980s modernization has also led to red links because of obsolete weaponry, yet in both cases I see no need to penalize the author for this. TomStar81 08:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you guys. It would be silly to not give something FA status just because linked articles don't exist. It would only promote people not linking to them, or linking, but writing substubs. Now if such a link is a subpage of an FA that summarizes something in a section, it's another thing... Mgm|(talk) 11:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Something else to consider about featured articles and red ink: Since the featured article is right out on the main page people who generally wouldn't look for the article have accsess to it, and may have knowlage of the red inked link, which leads to an increase in the number of pages and a reduction in the red ink links. TomStar81 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
References
What is the appropriate way to deal with references to other wikipedia content? Wikipedia:Cite sources suggests not including them in a references section. Fair enough; the original references will be in other wikipedia articles, which we can follow links to see. But this raises the possibility of an article with no references section at all that is actually soundly referenced. The easiest way for that to happen is to write a monster article, full of detailed references, then have it split according to Wikipedia:Summary style so that everything in the article is then a summary of some other wikipedia article, which contains all the references.
This hasn't happened yet, exactly, but I was editing carbon and removed the only entry under "References" because replaced the only place it was used with information from material properties of diamond. (Of course, carbon should have loads of references, but that's beside the point for now...) --Andrew 04:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- This is actually a pretty big deal, and one I also ran into (consequently, while working on diamond and its sub-articles) without knowing what to do. If material properties of diamond is well referenced, as it is, and I use a fact from that article in the main article diamond, do I need to duplicate the reference? I've come to think that maybe we can use other Wikipedia articles as formal references, but only so long as those articles are well referenced themselves. (Does that mean we should list subarticles in the ==References== section?) The obvious danger is that we create huge circular references where we only back things up with our own articles, which of course defeats the whole purpose of referencing in the first place. - Bryan is Bantman 17:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- That's a tricky point. There is precedent and instruction for referencing foreign language wikis (which I've followed on some of the xxxx in Rail Transport pages), but other than mentioning related articles in a See also section, I haven't seen any other guidelines on referencing existing articles. My thought is that if an article is used as a reference, it should be listed in the References section. We have a mechanism to link to specific versions of articles through the page history, so why not use it? Perhaps list wiki articles in a subsection of the References like === Wikipedia references === or somesuch, and list the article name as a link to the specific version that was referenced. slambo 18:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think ALoan is right. But it's true that (especially for print references) we should be more willing to trust well-referenced Wikipedia articles than random unsupported claims. What I mean is, I think it's okay, although not ideal, to simply plunder another wikipedia article for facts; ideally, one would go check the references. Only if this is done should the refs be added to the article's refs section. This will be more easily done if one records which wikipedia article the refs come from. What I've been doing with all my refs is putting an abbreviated specific reference in comments (like <!--[[Material properties of diamond]]--> or <!--http://www.scuba-doc.com/HPNS.html-->) and then (if it's not a Wikipedia article) listing the detailed ref in the References section. --~~~~
Other language Wikipedias
Should it be a guideline that a Featured Article should attempt to include as many links as possible to other languages? I've been using aka's marvellous search tool to add these to as many Featured Article Candidates as possible, and if I have time I might start on some existing FAs. It only really works for proper names, so we couldn't make this a hard and fast rule - people can't be expected to translate an article title into 93 different languages - but where it's easy to check what exists, I think this should be encouraged. --194.73.130.132 15:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've tried to do this as far as possible. See the India page ~80 links. Its shouldn't be expected that the authors waste their effort in translating the pages. Having a simple english page on the other hand would help the SE cause and also those who may not understand the jargon on the FA page, but would like to read a good article. =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
US music
I am hoping on nominating music of the United States soon. Having recently used the Titan (moon) system of referencing, I'd like to get some input from the FAC crowd (since PR is inappropriate for this case). See the References section, with quotes from the sources. I think this is very useful and interesting, but is making the references section very long. If the entire article is done like this, it will be way over 32k. Should I remove the quotes but otherwise keep the referencing the way it is? Or does page size not matter in this case? Do you like the sound sample download format (e.g. at Music of the United States#Native American music)? Or does that seem to obtrusive? Tuf-Kat 17:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to ding the article on length if what is pushing it above 32K is extensive referencing. --mav 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fictional Articles and Featured Article Status
Is their a general rule for the status of fictional articles with regards to their eligability (or lack there of) of becoming featured articles? I cannot seem to find anything regarding the subject. TomStar81 08:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- First, define what you mean by 'Fictional Articles'. If you mean 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', then that article will be treated the same as any other. If you mean 'a fake article that is pulling the reader's leg', then that will be treated just like any other vandalism and be deleted. --mav 17:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think he means fictional in the good (e.g., literay) sense, like with Foundation Series or Superman or whatnot. And yes, those articles are treated no differently. →Raul654 20:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm talking about 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', like the kinds of examples Raul654 named. The reason I brought I up is because some of the articles related to the Gundam Universe (which is an entirely fictional universe) have been refined enough to meet the needed criteria for featured article status, but the only featured articles I see are those that come from the actual real world. I know that fair use images do not qualify for featured picture status, but I was unclear on whether or not fictional articles were similarly disqualified. TomStar81 23:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Recent condensing of the criteria
I for one think the changes are great, and make the criteria simpler and more concise. However, now the section on images is gone and the only leftover part says you don't really need images. I think that is misleading since in practice every article that does not have an image is objected to multiple times. The only ones that make it through without one are conceptual articles where an actual image is difficult or impossible. I think the criteria should reflct some clarity around this issue. - [ this was User:Taxman ] 12:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I would even suggest that, as it's worded now, the paragraph on images should be bullet point 5. The lead for the list is "A featured article should", and the first four words of the images paragraph starts the same way. slambo 12:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed - a good rewrite; I changed "may" to "should" contain images where appropriate, as it used to say, incidentally. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I came across two conflicting sentences while editing:
- A featured article should have images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate.
- However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured.
I left things as they were to avoid controversy, and assumed that images were not a prerequsite for FA status. I would be happy to re-word the paragraph to reflect your comments.
If pictures were required, would it be okay if I removed the following sentence: "however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful."
=mrcleanup= 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not really conflicting, as "should" and "must" are not quite the same thing. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Where I come from, "should" has a meaning closer to "must". I remember reading somewhere on the internet that in the U.S., "should" has a meaning closer to "may" (if my memory serves me well). Your comment has made this clearer. =mrcleanup= 13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm Irish, and my sense of it here is that "should" allows for the possiblilty of a "however" while "must" does not. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Where I come from, "should" has a meaning closer to "must". I remember reading somewhere on the internet that in the U.S., "should" has a meaning closer to "may" (if my memory serves me well). Your comment has made this clearer. =mrcleanup= 13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. :) --mav 01:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Whoa - this series of edits almost slipped by me. I only checked the diff for the last one, not realizing there were a bunch more. Anyway, from what I can see, it looks good. →Raul654 01:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Inline citations
At the danger of getting the wrong answer, I think we need to discuss whether inline citations are simply desirable in a featured article, or mandatory. The absence of inline citations has been coming up as an objection on WP:FAC very frequently in recent weeks, principally by mav. I know he has the highest of motives, but, to my mind, at least, that objection is not supported by the current criteria: Wikipedia:What is a featured article currently says that a featured article should be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", not "must contain inline citations".
There seems to be a slippery slope - the same slippery slope that made the criterion for references go from "when and where appropriate" to required, see above - that will require any featured articles to look like an academic treatise, not an encyclopedia article. I am not objecting to the requirement to provide sources to justify the broad content of an article, nor indeed to provide specific inline citations (whether using {{inote}} or otherwise) to support an specific surprising, contentious or debateable point, but I think requiring inline citations as a matter of course is simply overkill. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- While I personally prefer the idea of inline citations, I don't think it should be a requirement (nor do I think historically there has been support to require them). →Raul654 20:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Appropriate use of inline citations is a requirement. I originally opposed this but was over-ruled. Using invisible cites will not make the article look like an academic treatise. You come from a FAC on a topic that many people think is in large part original research. Use of inline citations behind weasel terms like "some publications" is certainly appropriate in such a case. --mav 22:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- A couple of points. There is now quite a tradition for FA standards to rise over time, and I am comfortable with this general trend - calling this a "slippery slope" is too negative an attitude. Now the flavour of the month is inline cites. These are generally useful - most articles will contain at least some specific facts where it is beneficial to the reader to know precisely where they came from. However I would much prefer to see "Facts A,B,C,D should have a specific citation" rather than "This article only has two specific citations. Please add more". The former is actionable, the latter is not. Pcb21| Pete 12:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- You keep using that word... (Well not just you, lots of people do that, but I've got to keep the quote straight :) Actionable means able to be acted upon. "Please add more" is actionable because the editor can add them, an action. While it is more helpful to ask for specific facts to be cited, that is not required to be actionable. It is fairly straightforward to prioritize the facts in the article from the two standpoints of most potentially contentious and most important and to cite those. 'Any featured quality article should have used good sources, so citing the top facts in the article should be no big deal. While I'm against a numerical requirement, certainly 20+ facts would not be unreasonable to cite in an article the length of even the shortest FA's, and certainly 10 would not be an unbearable task for any editor that has done good research. I'll repeat for emphasis, if you've done good research, citing a reasonable number of facts should be no big deal. If you don't feel like formatting them, just at least give a listing of which source and maybe a page number in a comment. If we promote this as just another step in the process when adding material and people get in the habit of it, it is really not very hard at all. - Taxman 13:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Very good points. At first I was really annoyed by this new requirement since it was something I was not doing before. But now that I know the requirement exists, I add inline cites as I write. It is very easy and second nature now. What still is a bugger is having to go back to an article I wrote without cites to add them. That takes hours but is worth it since it makes the article much more verifiable. Arguments that say that having such cites is not standard for an encyclopedia need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a standard encyclopedia; that letting anybody edit any time and having multiple authors carries an extra burden of proof that what the reader is reading was not simply made up. --mav
- You keep using that word... (Well not just you, lots of people do that, but I've got to keep the quote straight :) Actionable means able to be acted upon. "Please add more" is actionable because the editor can add them, an action. While it is more helpful to ask for specific facts to be cited, that is not required to be actionable. It is fairly straightforward to prioritize the facts in the article from the two standpoints of most potentially contentious and most important and to cite those. 'Any featured quality article should have used good sources, so citing the top facts in the article should be no big deal. While I'm against a numerical requirement, certainly 20+ facts would not be unreasonable to cite in an article the length of even the shortest FA's, and certainly 10 would not be an unbearable task for any editor that has done good research. I'll repeat for emphasis, if you've done good research, citing a reasonable number of facts should be no big deal. If you don't feel like formatting them, just at least give a listing of which source and maybe a page number in a comment. If we promote this as just another step in the process when adding material and people get in the habit of it, it is really not very hard at all. - Taxman 13:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a shame I said actionable and that you concentrated on that. I should've said that the former objection is more useful than the latter. You say "Please add some inline cites to this article; you get to pick" and indeed I can carry out an action passed on that just to shut you up, as it were, and get my article featured. But if I cite ten facts that could be verified in five seconds by using Google then I've added nothing to the article. It's just creating a false impression of verfiability. Specific requests for cites on facts you feel needed backing up however, definitely add something to the article. Pcb21| Pete 16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good points also. It is apparent from the tone of your response that my comments must have come accross much more abrasively than they were meant to. I apologize, as that was not my intention. Basically, avoiding that pitfall you point out is not much different that any other factor in writing a great article. If the guideline is to cite the most contentious and the most important facts in an article, and instead what you referred to is done, the guideline has certainly not been met. Where would be the most appropriate place to have that guideline, this article or Wikipedia:Cite sources? And is my proposed guideline a good one? As a side note, I would say that even if what you outlined actually occurred, I would still argue the article is improved, even if only slightly. I'm not sure how many would agree with me on that, but I think verifiability is simply that important. It's Wikipedia's biggest weakness. - Taxman 18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a shame I said actionable and that you concentrated on that. I should've said that the former objection is more useful than the latter. You say "Please add some inline cites to this article; you get to pick" and indeed I can carry out an action passed on that just to shut you up, as it were, and get my article featured. But if I cite ten facts that could be verified in five seconds by using Google then I've added nothing to the article. It's just creating a false impression of verfiability. Specific requests for cites on facts you feel needed backing up however, definitely add something to the article. Pcb21| Pete 16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- No need to apologize. I was over-reacting. Inline references are good, and FAC comments should encourage them. If those FAC comments are particularly detailed and specific, so much the better. But even if not, the writer should implicitly understand where citations are most appropriate. This is different from the vague objections like "not comprehensive, but don't know how" that don't help the reader at all. Pcb21| Pete 10:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Note that due to the amount of work required to add inline cites retroactively, I very strongly oppose this requirement to be retroactive on FAs that were nominated before this was a requirement. I do, however, think that a lack of a populated ==References== section is a reasonable thing to add to a FARC nomination (but that should not be the only reason). Adding such a section to an older article is not nearly as difficult as adding inline cites to such an article. --mav 14:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to say I reluctantly agree with inline cites not being applied retroactively for the very reason you mention. Especially since it is just now getting formalized as a requirement. In a minimum of a year, I would consider revisiting that though. I would also like to emphasize what you know but did not include in your comment above, that simply listing a book (or other resource) about a subject in a References section is innapropriate, instead the book has to have actually been read and to actually confirm the material in the article. Finally, as many may well know, I would of course disagree with you that a lack of references alone is not sufficient for listing on FARC. It has been a long time now that references have been a requirement, and also a long time now a list was produced of all FA's without references to illuminate the problem, and a month now that every FA without references has had a request made to add references to it. I'm an eventualist too, and believe that Wikipedia will continue to improve, but I also believe that we can be ok with breaking some eggs to make an omlette. And I believe that omlette would feed the hungry of the world better and sooner if we break the eggs now (or soon). If it was made widely clear that at a given date, say a month from now, the references requirement would be retroactive to all FA's, I think we would all be amazed at how much success there would be in referencing them all. Given that advance warning, I think there would be nothing but good as a result of making the switch to retroactive. I'm not anticipating that many will suddenly agree with me, but I decided to restate what I believe anyway. Feel free to move this to a new section if anyone wants to reply to this instead of the inline cites issue. Thanks for reading. - Taxman 18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :) I'd like to get some more back-up re objecting to FACs that don't have adequate inline cites. As is, I'm a bit of the poster child for objecting based on this (which is odd considering I did not agree to this addition to the referencing requirement at first). --mav 02:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Somehow the term "inline citation" has been made synonymous with "footnote", which doesn't seem very logical to me. An inline citation is actually writing a sentence into an article paragraph along the lines of "According to 'Book Y' by 'John Doe', 75% of all cats are brown" or something like it. A footnote may be considered an inline citation, but is not in the least bit synonymous. And considering how a lot of recent article have clearly overused footnotes, I think we should try to explain either in the criteria or on nomination pages that footnotes aren't actually required and that they are not the least bit helpful if used in excess. In any subject that isn't particularly controversial, I would prefer a short and concise "References"-section over 20+ footnotes any day of the week. And any reference that has been inserted only on the account of meta-debates over pointless minutiae at the talkpage should be removed on sight. At least when it comes to FA(C)s.
- Peter Isotalo 14:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I wrote Yom Kippur War (which was promoted recently) and it uses the academic citation style quite a bit more than footnotes. →Raul654 14:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Question mark
Following the move of Wikipedia:What is a featured list to Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, should this also move to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? (that is, shouldn't the article's name end in a question mark?) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "What is a featured article" can be a statement can't it? It's just a different way of saying: [This is] what a featured article is. Unless the alternative is much better, I'd like to keep it where it is at. - Taxman Talk 13:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Grammatically, it's a question. Maybe Wikipedia:What a featured article is would do the trick, but I'd favour the "?" option. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to think of any context in which you would use "What is a featured article" as a statement rather than as a question (per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?, I think "who" and "what" are used in somewhat different situations). Wikipedia:What a featured article is is rather less elegant, IMHO. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is an alternative, I suppose. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, if we're going to move, I'd be happy with Wikipedia:Featured article criteria since that's what is written most of the time when linking to this page anyway. We always write criteria or featured article criteria, so why wouldn't the page be named that instead? - Taxman Talk 16:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to think of any context in which you would use "What is a featured article" as a statement rather than as a question (per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?, I think "who" and "what" are used in somewhat different situations). Wikipedia:What a featured article is is rather less elegant, IMHO. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is an alternative, I suppose. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would recommend against adding a question mark to the page name for reasons stated on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) slambo 14:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Not really relevant as the ? would be at the end of the title. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
No no, I don't like this idea one bit. Not only does it strike me as pedantic, but (a) tons of pages already link here and (b) it makes the article harder to find. →Raul654 14:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree it would be practically difficult; however, I cannot agree that asking for correct punctuation in a title is pedantic. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm - I'm undecided whether "pedantic" is a personal attack or a compliment (looking at our article, decidedly the former!). But anyway, whether it is pedantic or not is really beside the point: Wikipedia:What is a featured article just looks wrong. It would not be at all difficult - searching would still work, the "?" is at the end of the name so links would work too, and there would be a redirect, which would also solve the "lots of links" point too. But I am not going to die in a ditch over a question mark. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would favour the use of the question mark, or rephrasing as a non-question ("What a featured article is").
- James F. (talk) 14:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As was suggested above, if we were going to move it (and I'm still not fond of the idea) Wikipedia:featured article criteria would be the place to put it. →Raul654 16:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
FAC and Peer Review
I know that it is listed as a step in "The Path to a Featured Article" infobox, but I have been noticing more and more often that articles seem to be nominated for FA without even bothering to go through the peer review process. Or they get impatient after about a week of PR and jump it over to FAC. Perhaps there should be a rule that any article is firmly required, without exception, to go through peer review for the full month period that PR remains active before being allowed to be a FAC. Should that apply also to repeat bids? (I think so - I can't see how it can hurt to give an article more time and outside help.) Even if there are good articles that get through to FA without PR, I find it hard to believe that the process can be a significant impediment to any article. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? Not to say that's a bad thing at all, but clearly there is a backlog, so should anyone object that a new rule of this sort would lower the number of promoted articles, the answer seems to be that that doesn't appear to necessarily be a bad thing in the short term - some of those older promoted ones waiting in the wings and getting dusty can finally see the Main Page! Anyway, just my musings... What do you all think? --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:34 (UTC)
- Requirng peer review for FACs has been proposed before and has been roundly shot down every time. It is understood that peer review is an optional part of the Featured article process. Requiring it is instruction creep, and it serves little value becaus people have no incentive to make it work. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? - No. The standards - what we expect of a featured article - have gone up (A LOT) over the past year, and this has artificially depressed the rate at which featured articles are being generated. I believe today is the 183rd day of 2005 and (to date) we have had a net increase of 181 featured articles this year (which is in fact below the 1 article/day minimum we must sustain in order to prevent any repeats). →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:39 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I withdraw the proposal. (Shoulda checked the archives, I guess! Oops.) --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:42 (UTC)
- Nah, in the future, don't bother checking archives - it's a waste of your time. It's probably buried deep in the archives of the featured article candidates talk page, and there are people here who can tell you off the top of their heads that an idea is not new. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:47 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I withdraw the proposal. (Shoulda checked the archives, I guess! Oops.) --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:42 (UTC)
If you recommend an article should be sent to Peer Review, you should be active on Peer Review --PopUpPirate 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look. --MarSch 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Image copyrights, again
Raul, can we list the acceptable image copyrights on here for Requirement Five, for future reference? There is still a problem about fair use images at FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've modified the link to go to the license section of the Copyright FAQ, which lists more-or-less all of the common licenses and whether or not they are acceptable. Is that suitable to you? →Raul654 02:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Perfect. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Raising the bar
I'd like to change
- Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
to
- Be the best article about the topic available in any encyclopedia or information resource, on or off-line.
Is there any reason to set the bar lower? - Fredrik | talk 12:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Many books have been written about topics we wish to cover with FAs. We cannot, and should not aspire to, cover any topic with the same breadth and depth as a lengthy scholarly work. Besides, the "best article available" varies by who is looking; the best article to a scholarly researcher is much different than the best article for a curious but casual reader. We must serve all audiences, so it is doubtful we can be the best to everyone on everything. But I like your ambitions! :) - Bantman 18:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with Bantam - an 40 kilobyte-or-less article on some given subject cannot ever hope to be more informative than a 400 page book on the same. →Raul654 20:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- The purpose of articles on Wikipedia is to provide the most essential information in as condensed a format as possible, and we can easily do that better than most 400 page books. If we need more information, we move the details to specific articles and get those featured as well. What about scholars vs casual readers? Indeed, we need to serve all audiences, and therefore we can state that our articles should be the best at making the tradeoff required to serve all audiences. Seems clear enough to me. Note that the qualification of "representing what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet" is equally hard to reach since many of our FA topics are covered on lots of other sites. It is really a guideline more than a rule, and that's why I think making it more ambitious is justified. Fredrik | talk 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with Bantam - an 40 kilobyte-or-less article on some given subject cannot ever hope to be more informative than a 400 page book on the same. →Raul654 20:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Many books have been written about topics we wish to cover with FAs. We cannot, and should not aspire to, cover any topic with the same breadth and depth as a lengthy scholarly work. Besides, the "best article available" varies by who is looking; the best article to a scholarly researcher is much different than the best article for a curious but casual reader. We must serve all audiences, so it is doubtful we can be the best to everyone on everything. But I like your ambitions! :) - Bantman 18:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
References
Perhaps we might want to explicitly put the "...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." part of Wikipedia:The perfect article here; I see that this is a criticism that often arises in candidacies, and I reckon that it isn't obvious for people who are not accustomed to scientific article,s for instance. Rama 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think the phrase "reputable sources" could become a needless point of contention. Sometimes a source is not viewed as "reputable" by everyone, and yet it represents a notable view (where no others exist). 119 19:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I actually like this. If there is no other source for a view, then any source is fine - as long as it is noted, the reader can judge the validity of the source himself. But for most facts or viewpoints, I feel much more confident in believing them when they are referenced to, say, New England Journal of Medicine rather than about.com. Even for contentious views, a reference from a known source, even if biased, is better than one where the reader cannot judge the potential bias of an item because the source is unknown to him. - Bantman 21:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- That's easy to solve with "the most reputable source available". Then people can't use garbage sites if much better is available, but don't get frustrated when there is only one source has the info. It is important to discourage shoddy resources as references just to get by the requirement. - Taxman Talk 16:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- "Most reputable" is very difficult - for example, Fox News Channel and National Public Radio are both held as credible and unbiased by many, but also accused (justly or unjustly, it doesn't matter) by many as substantially biased. Regardless, as long as sources are well known, the reader can judge for himself. If a fact is referenced with Fox News as a source, the reader can say to himself "I trust Fox News, so I trust this is true" or "Fox News is biased; therefore this fact may also be biased." Reputation in this case is not a problem; it is recognition of the source. In other cases, "most reputable" is appropriate, for example when a scholarly peer-reviewed journal (especially in the hard sciences) can supply the same facts as some blog. Accessibility is another issue; if we have two reputable sources, we would rather reference the more accessible one to facilitate fact checking. Example: I'd rather reference a Smithsonian web article on most unspecialized knowledge than an offline scholarly journal, because 1) Smitsonian is trustworthy, 2) the subject matter is not controversial enough to need the gravitas of a journal, and 3) accessibility facilitates fact checking, which reinforces our reputability. To summarize, it looks like I've come up with two more criteria for references, plus Taxman's:
- Reputable
- Recognizable
- Accessible
- We need to encourage the maximization of all three of these aspects for references: the perfect reference would be an online article from an unimpeachable source with a household name. While this is almost never possible, we need to strive for that, and favor references that achieve the best balance among the three criteria listed above. - Bantman 17:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I think is a solution in search of a problem. We have not, to my knowledge, had problems with people citing crappy sources in articles because I believe it's pretty obvious that you are expected to use good ones. Until it becomes problem, I don't see a need to add this. →Raul654 20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I disagree. One recent example is cat, which had a successful FAC nomination despite using as references such websites as "cats.about.com", "hgtv.com" (a home improvement cable channel), "cozycatfurniture.com", "fabcats.org", "demented-pixie.com" (my personal favorite), "messybeast.com", and personal webpages. While these references are all accessible, they are neither reputable nor recognizable. This makes the article weaker than it should be, considering that there must be a wide variety of excellent references available for most of the facts cited. Clearly, using superior references strengthens the article, and I firmly believe we should encourage this. - Bantman 20:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I also disagree. I see this all the time, people citing Joe's website in support of their claims, and lacking even a hint of understanding of the difference in quality of sources as Brian has outlined above. See Talk:Battery electric vehicle. Or at least they feign to in order to not have to look for better sources. I like Brian's criteria. I do suppose what I am mentioning is not as much of a problem for FA's but it does still happen for FAC's and certainly happens all over Wikipedia. To respond directly to Brian though I don't find Fox nor NPR as remotely high quality references for a fact. I would take a well regarded textbook over either one of them any day, because of the editing and review process those go through. For material that is new, and is not in journals or textbooks, we may have to accept that news organizations are the best sources we have, but lets not kid ourselves that they are as high quality as other choices. Is cite sources the best place to educate people on how to research facts and what sources are best, or do people have ideas on where that best can be done? - Taxman Talk 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Of course you're right re: news orgs vs. textbooks; for some reason I had contemporary politics in my head, which is more dependent on news for sources. Even then, I'd generally prefer newspapers and magazines, for precisely the reasons you mention. - Bantman 21:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I think is a solution in search of a problem. We have not, to my knowledge, had problems with people citing crappy sources in articles because I believe it's pretty obvious that you are expected to use good ones. Until it becomes problem, I don't see a need to add this. →Raul654 20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- "Most reputable" is very difficult - for example, Fox News Channel and National Public Radio are both held as credible and unbiased by many, but also accused (justly or unjustly, it doesn't matter) by many as substantially biased. Regardless, as long as sources are well known, the reader can judge for himself. If a fact is referenced with Fox News as a source, the reader can say to himself "I trust Fox News, so I trust this is true" or "Fox News is biased; therefore this fact may also be biased." Reputation in this case is not a problem; it is recognition of the source. In other cases, "most reputable" is appropriate, for example when a scholarly peer-reviewed journal (especially in the hard sciences) can supply the same facts as some blog. Accessibility is another issue; if we have two reputable sources, we would rather reference the more accessible one to facilitate fact checking. Example: I'd rather reference a Smithsonian web article on most unspecialized knowledge than an offline scholarly journal, because 1) Smitsonian is trustworthy, 2) the subject matter is not controversial enough to need the gravitas of a journal, and 3) accessibility facilitates fact checking, which reinforces our reputability. To summarize, it looks like I've come up with two more criteria for references, plus Taxman's:
Sorry, My point was mostly emphasised like this: "...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." I worry much more about people not giving any source, than people ginving sources of questionable value. Rama 20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I worry much more about people not giving any source - this is generally not a problem now - the references requirement is a well-accepted one. →Raul654 20:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- At least for FA's, but we still have a long way to go to make sure editors reallize it is important for every article, and even that all editors will see guidelines that recommend it. That said, we have come a long way in a year on this front and all progress should be considered encouraging. - Taxman Talk 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. I've been using reference sections for all new articles I create (even stubs), and some editors (including well-known and respected ones) have tried changing them to "external links". I think awareness is high in the FAC community, but we still need to spread the good word to others. - Bantman 18:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- At least for FA's, but we still have a long way to go to make sure editors reallize it is important for every article, and even that all editors will see guidelines that recommend it. That said, we have come a long way in a year on this front and all progress should be considered encouraging. - Taxman Talk 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
"Inline citations"
There's obviously a clash of opinions when it comes to the following sentence:
- [A featured article...] Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources).
For one thing, the widespread notion that "inline citation" means "footnote" is a problem. That this sentence is cited by those who feel that inline citations should be mandatory is an even bigger problem. Most FAC subjects should be comprehensive and general enough to require inline citations, but that does not mean it applies to all candidates equally. Personally, I feel the current wording is ambiguous for a reason and should stay that way. Just like too many images or a bad sub-section hierarchy will spoil an article, so will a pointless sprinkling of cosmetic footnotes. A very good example of this is names of the Greeks.
- I believe it is fairly established that there is not a consensus style for inline citations, so footnotes or Harvard referencing or whatever else is considered fine. Maybe that should be in the criteria specifically, but it has not been in order to simplify the criteria as much as possible. - Taxman Talk 22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I think all objections that call for more referencing without proper justification should be disregarded, especially when made with nonsense claims that, for example, all historical facts need specific references. Blanket statements like this is about as merited as "it's not interesting enough". And it should be very obvious that any article that has multiple notes in single paragraphs or even sentences are either grossly over-referenced or need to be rewritten. Peter Isotalo 18:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- And I think you should show more respect to your fellow wikipedians, and try more to understand their thesis, or should I say their answers to your objections all these days. Thanks. MATIA 18:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- But take a look through the archive on this talk page about footnotes. It's not as cut-and-dried as some of the other requirements and has proven to be a little controversial here. I know I brought up similar concerns in (I think) March, and we've been discussing it off an on since then. No real consensus has been reached, but we've so far agreed that better referencing on articles is a Good Thing (tm). slambo 18:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- And again, please read the archives, where the consensus for this was achieved. Also spend some time at Wikipedia:Verifiability. If after really reading those, you can tell me some actual advantages (that outweigh the costs) to reducing inline citation then I am all ears. I will specifically repeat that it has been established that appropriate does not mean none. I believe there is no subject that would benefit from not having inline citations. - Taxman Talk 22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of response is that? Slambo claims he can't find the consensus you insist is there and you tell him to read it again? You're no longer discussing this. You've just dug in and now you're doing your best to blatantly trivialize objections or to warp whatever criticism that might be voiced into some sort of general assault on the foundations of verifiability. No one's even calling for a rewrite of policy, yet you're rock solid in your opinion that only your interpretation is valid and that whatever you've perceived as consensus in past discussions supports you. It's disheartening to say the least.
- Peter Isotalo 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well hmm, misunderstandings all around, because that response wasn't to Slambo, it was to you, but I can see the confusion, because I didn't place it very well, sorry. So was MATIA's comment, [here's the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article&diff=22267407&oldid=22267012]. I think the indenting is finally right for who was responding to who. You do need to read the archives, because, while there were opinions both ways, what we ended up changing the criteria to is the citations are needed, and that appropriate doesn't mean none. I'm not telling you that's my interpretating, that was the interpretation of many, and I can pull out specific diffs from various nominations after we made that change if you like, specifically discussing the difference between appropriate and none. But ignore all that if you want to, and just respond to the most important part, italicized above. Given that, I do feel this is very important to the core issues of building an encyclopedia, so I will defend it strongly, but I certainly don't mean to piss people off, and I'm sorry, because clearly I have. - Taxman Talk 02:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I've never liked breaking up threads, but it's your response, so it's your call.
- Previous discussions do not count as policy unless they've resulted in actual policy change, and it's very obvious that even if the unanimous consensus you talk about existed, there's clearly enough criticism to consider it rather shaky. Just the fact that it's not immidiately obvious to someone like slambo is a very good sign that you're exaggerating its importance. Your highlighted sentence is really nothing more than a repetition of what I've already criticized, so I don't see what there is to add. For some reason you're trying very hard to polarize and overly simplify the attempts of others to nuance policy and making them out as being generally "anti-reference". The policies and ideas that articles should be verifiable are not in any kind of jeapordy even with the somewhat conservative interpretations about footnote usage offered by myself, bish and geogre.
- Peter Isotalo 09:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, forget previous discussions. Pretend they never occurred if it's easier. But you've sidestepped the very core of the issue by saying it would just be repetitive. Well it wouldn't be, because this is all you've said (from the most representative quotes I can find besides what is on this page) is: "Just remove those 18 footnotes", "...and those who don't aren't going to demand specific page references.", "There's no value in keeping them", "Referencing things like ... effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose", "what I'm saying is no different from complaining that there are too many images or sub-sections in an FAC", " If a note clearly serves little or no purpose in referencing an article '...enhanced by appropriate usage...' might just as well be interpreted as 'none' (though not in this particular case)". So you haven't stated any actual positive value for Wikipedia or its articles to reduced inline citation. You've just repeatedly stated you don't think they're needed. What I'm asking you for is the why behind your stance. What is the value to removing them? Again, if anyone can answer that, and that value is greater that the cost of reduced verifiability, I'm at least listening. If what you really think is that they are just being misused, then lets work on how to best use them correctly,a nd make great, reliable articles, which is of course what we're all after, no matter what differences of opinion we have. - Taxman Talk 14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Well hmm, misunderstandings all around, because that response wasn't to Slambo, it was to you, but I can see the confusion, because I didn't place it very well, sorry. So was MATIA's comment, [here's the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article&diff=22267407&oldid=22267012]. I think the indenting is finally right for who was responding to who. You do need to read the archives, because, while there were opinions both ways, what we ended up changing the criteria to is the citations are needed, and that appropriate doesn't mean none. I'm not telling you that's my interpretating, that was the interpretation of many, and I can pull out specific diffs from various nominations after we made that change if you like, specifically discussing the difference between appropriate and none. But ignore all that if you want to, and just respond to the most important part, italicized above. Given that, I do feel this is very important to the core issues of building an encyclopedia, so I will defend it strongly, but I certainly don't mean to piss people off, and I'm sorry, because clearly I have. - Taxman Talk 02:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I can help clear up what I meant to convey... The citations requirement as it stands now is that references must be cited in the article. As a minimum, the references used must be listed in a == References == section which is normally at the end of the article. This should (not must) be enhanced with the appropriate use of inline citations. The lack of consensus is over whether the inline citations should be in the form of footnotes, journal style notes that refer to items in the References section, or even numbered links to external online references. It is up to the articles' editors to determine the appropriate amount and use of inline citations for each article. We have not come to an agreement on one specific type of inline citations (personally, I don't much like footnotes, but I don't use a lack of inlines or their presence as an objection), and the way things are going with nominations, I don't see that happening for a while yet. What we have all agreed is that aiding the verifiability of an article's facts is necessary. slambo 11:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Both have its merits and demerits. I have a few suggestions: What if we combine the merits of both systems? Use inotes so that it doesn't break up the flow of the text, but at the same time Taxman can view the references. How this is done? By CSS: class="inote" for Peter and all of us it will be inote{display:none} and for Taxman it will be *inote{display:all}. So while we'll see nothing in normal mode, Taxman who'll have to modify monoboox.css, will see the following:
{{inote|Milton-Ch2-pg3}}rendered as:text text text 103Milton-Ch2-pg3– for books{{inote|http://www.google.com|4}}rendered as:text text text 1034– for URL's
what the rest of us will see:
- text text text 103
=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- That's awesome, thanks. We've been clamoring for an option for those that don't want to see them don't have to, and that is almost perfect. The only thing better would be to have that be an account preferences option instead of having to change the css style sheet. I don't mind personally, but it would be easier for everyone. - Taxman Talk 14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- You'd need to contact a developer to set the class in the HTML code first. I was also wondering if we could have a "verify" button in addition to "article" "edit" "discussion" etc., so that the actual modification of the css file by a user is not done; instead the server dishes up the correct css file. We already have a "print" version, so a "verify" version is the next logical step. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for suggesting a compromise, Nichalp, but I like the fact the footnotes link straight to the reference section. It is a hellofalot better than footnotes in books and both inline citation and footnotes have their merits and both can be used in the same article, so simply turning off footnotes for most people doesn't really seem like a practical solution. And as for print-outs, the current system would work fine even on paper.
- I'm also not quie comfortable being described as a proponent of "a system". I'm trying to influence people to stop overusing footnotes, not to get rid of them altogether. I think slambo's post summarizes my own view of this very nicely. It should be determined from case to case and the article editors should preferably decide. But I still think it's very reasonable to object to either too few or too many footnotes as long as the objection is at least generally specified. "There isn't enough/too many references" or "all historical facts require/don't require notes" isn't actionable, and I try my best to specify what I feel to be overusage whenever I object even if I don't address each individual note.
- Peter Isotalo 18:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm one of those who likes footnotes, but dislikes the clutter and distractions of footnote overuse. I prefer to use a style I've seen in recent publications which limits footnotes to one per paragraph. In this style, the footnote number is placed at the end of the paragraph, where it is least distracting. In the footnote text, all of the relevant reference information for the paragraph is briefly described. See Population history of American indigenous peoples for an example of my usage of this style. I hope others like it and use it. --Kevin Myers 04:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- You'd need to contact a developer to set the class in the HTML code first. I was also wondering if we could have a "verify" button in addition to "article" "edit" "discussion" etc., so that the actual modification of the css file by a user is not done; instead the server dishes up the correct css file. We already have a "print" version, so a "verify" version is the next logical step. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
FAs and Conflicts of Interest
I don't know if any of you are keeping track of the fun and games with regards to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo, but I thought we might try to come to some consensus before the article returns for another FA vote. In a nutshell, here is my major issue with the article: One of the people actively involved in the Terri Schiavo case, Gordon Watts (User:GordonWattsDotCom and here's his personal webpage) is actively involved in the creation of the article and even nominated it for FAC last time. I am aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest standards, and that a conflict of interest doesn't necesarily keep someone from contributing to an article. However, I feel uneasy about articles with such blatent conflict of interest becoming a FA, especially when the editor promoting the article for FAC is the one with the conflict. Does anyone else have concerns about this? Could the Wikipedia:What is a featured article be adjusted to reflect this, or is that going too far?--Alabamaboy 02:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, one way to look at this is that someone who is very familiar with the details is contributing to the article, so it's more likely that accurate (and hopefully well-referenced) information would be included. However, we could also see it as a veiled attempt to push a particular POV. Personally, I would rather have someone who has done a lot of research in a field be a contributor to articles in that field (which is why, for example, all of my own edits have something to do with railroad history and rail transport technology). As long as we do everything we can to ensure a neutral POV, and work to make the articles as readable as possible, even to the point of "brilliant prose", then there is less to worry about. slambo 17:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Further criteria added to what is a FA
I have added the following criteria, because the GNAA article failed solely on this issue:
- Additionally, an article which exists on Wikipedia, though it may not be deleted because it is considered notable, may not become a featured article unless the group has been referenced in a published book, newspaper, magazine or Academic journal. (cf Gay Nigger Association of America). This is a controversial FA criteria because it cannot be actioned (we cannot effect external publications and we cannot publish original research.
If we are going to fail an FA solely on this criteria, then we should at least update this as a reason why an article may not make FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
FA instructions and criteria
Dialogue between Bishonen and me pasted in as relevant to this page. Tony 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I could cope with the removal of the expansion to point 6 (what not to write at the top of a nomination), but I will argue strongly that the additional signpost in point 1, concerning the need to have nominations copy edited thoroughly beforehand, should stay. Substandard prose was becoming a serious problem in the nominations, and I think (although I'm not certain) that the problem has lessened since the recent expansion of point 1. Clearly, nominators either had a distorted sense of the standards that apply ('compelling, even brilliant' prose) or weren't reading the criteria.
As a contributor who has put a lot of time and effort into trying to raise the standards of prose in the nominations, I thought that something needed to be done. When I comment on poor prose in nominations, I feel I need either to roll my sleeves up and fix it myself, or quote several examples and pull them apart; it's a lot of work. That is why I acted, and no one has since complained. I wouldn't mind if the italic highlighting in point 1 were softened to roman. Tony 00:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
(Bishonen, thanks for your message; I've interpolated my responses into it:)
Tony, I appreciate your good intentions and the urgency that made you expand the instructions. But I do think it's bloat to add specifics on one aspect of one of the (many) criteria, right next to the link to the criteria themselves. Nominators need to either make very sure to click on that link, or else several other specially important points need to be mentioned up front (which I'm against, as creating more bloat). I'm pretty sure lack of references, for instance, is as frequent a problem as lack of copyediting.
- I've since pruned some of the additions in response to your comments, but your objection, I suspect, still applies to what remains. Lack of references, image copyright issues, and poor prose appear to the be most common complaints of reviewers. However, fixing poor prose, in my view, usually takes considerably more time, effort and skill than fixing the first two problems (not always, but usually). Poor prose is a more consistent problem, and is what will stick out when Wikipedia parades featured articles to the world. That's why I'm arguing that it be emphasised, and singled out for extra mention in the instructions.
Perhaps you might edit the criteria page further instead (I see you already did), to emphasize the need for copyediting?
- I've already significantly simplified the wording and formatting of the criteria, and shifted greater emphasis onto prose by moving it into first position (that was one of the few substantive changes in meaning that I made). I don't know what more you can say in the one place than 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. That's why I thought another signpost elsewhere was called for.
Though I also stand by my remark about it looking condescending to tell everybody to go get somebody else to copyedit before nominating. Wouldn't you agree that there are articles that are good to go directly from the hands of the author/s/..?
- I'm not sure that I agree; I'm a professional editor, yet on occasions I've hired someone else to edit my text when it really matters. It's the 'fresh pair of eyes' that just about all text needs, even text that has been produced by good writers. Perhaps we could soften the wording ('strongly recommended'?).
My overriding concern is that the instructions be kept simple and practical. Following Bishonen's Law, they will naturally tend to be always growing, as people add their own special concerns over time, while hardly anybody ever removes anything. I know Raul654 agrees with me in general, in fact it's Raul's ruthless pruning that has kept the FAC instructions so nice and simple compared to those of Peer Review. It wasn't very long since you made the additions, so it's possible that no one complained because no one noticed yet; the longer the instructions are, the more cursorily they'll probably be read, that's the problem.
- I agree with all of these points, but I'd like to see the additional clause in point 1 retained.
Tony 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Example FAs by type
Over at Wikipedia:Featured article review, I've begun a list of article types (e.g. albums, architectural styles, orders of chivalry) and their featured articles. The goal is to encourage the standardization of layout and formatting between articles on similar subjects. There's a lot of variation in featured articles, some of it for good reason, but a lot of it would be better off standardized. Is anybody here interested in working on this? Tuf-Kat 18:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Font size in references/notes sections
In many of "Today's featured articles", (e.g. Planetary habitability) the font size in the notes and references is reduced. I generally consider featured articles as "best practices" and therefore would go along with the reduced font size in notes and references. But, is this practice specified somewhere in the Manual of style or in some other guideline? Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't think it's specified anywhere - it's just something that developed as a result of articles with very long references sections (a common trait of featured articles). Using small font means that the article text isn't dominated by the references section. Raul654 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- What does dominated mean in an environment where you are scrolling through a document of arbitrary length and there are good guidelines for the ordering of the material? patsw 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- It means that for reasons of style the referenes section shouldn't be longer than the article itself, or even similiar in length. Raul654 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Succinct?
I replaced one of the succinct words with concise, just because I found it odd to have such an unusual, but clever, word used twice. Deckiller 04:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional requirement for articles dealing with a historical subject to be featured
Under 2b we learn that a featured article must be ""comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details." However, many articles on historical subjects have been passed without having a historiography section. Given that disciplinary history demands a historiographical consciousness, yet does not resolve to distinct "empirical" demonstrations as the sciences claim, an encyclopedic entry on a historical subject must discuss historiography in order to be featured. For an example of a pro-forma of what a historiography section should look like see History of the world or Katyn massacre. I would appreciate others comments on whether this should be considered a requirement for articles on historical subjects to be featured. Fifelfoo 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that's appropriate for all historical subjects. Consider that, per WP:NOR, any discussion of historiography must itself be cited from appropriate sources. For contentious or heavily studied periods, this may be possible; but for subjects where the material about the subject is itself fairly limited, finding material about the material about the subject will be next to impossible, and quite unenlightening to boot. —Kirill Lokshin 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Its still possible to indicate the seminal text, "Prior to Johansen (1974) no scholarly historical investigations were conducted into Boot Making in the Upper Hunter Valley. Johansen and subsequent scholars have followed principles developed in the fields of history of the firm and local history." Now some subjects in the past, Henry Miller for example, aren't historical in this sense. But articles claiming to be a "History of X" or dealing with a subject of central importance to history ("Causes of the First World War" for example) really should include this to qualify under 2b.Fifelfoo 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Then we can object on an ad-hoc basis. In other words, objecting because an article lacks historiographical discussion and the subject is such that this discussion would be meaningful is fine; objecting to all historical articles that lack such discussion (or in which the discussion is present in separate articles about the individual works cited) is excessive. —Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Its still possible to indicate the seminal text, "Prior to Johansen (1974) no scholarly historical investigations were conducted into Boot Making in the Upper Hunter Valley. Johansen and subsequent scholars have followed principles developed in the fields of history of the firm and local history." Now some subjects in the past, Henry Miller for example, aren't historical in this sense. But articles claiming to be a "History of X" or dealing with a subject of central importance to history ("Causes of the First World War" for example) really should include this to qualify under 2b.Fifelfoo 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea what a historiography is and I read that article, so I need no need, not a reason anyways, and on my article on FA that was opposed for it is rather hard to make one. Thank you --Jaranda wat's sup 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Krill and Aranda - I don't see any purpose to this requirement. Articles are required to have (good) sources; I don't think a seperate section discussing the sources should be required for all (or even most) articles. Raul654 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agree again with objections above against the historiographical section. The thing is that in analyzing sources (which again, I'm not too understanding of the subject like Jaranda), but by looking at the article for historiography such a topic seems completely digressive. You're analyzing a source(s), which is completely off the direct topic of writing about the history of x. That can be included in a sub-page, but otherwise is unnecessary for being comprehensive. The other thing you have to realize is that the history of x includes the entire history of x, not just a single event (like those above), so that it is difficult to actually find one source to analyze using historiographical techniques. Plus, such a change would require every single article under the history section of the WP:FA page to be removed and redone, which is certainly not practial. Unless your sources are very likely to be POV, like the one in Katyn massacre is (note all of the citation neededs), there is no real point to including historiography. AndyZ 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- History isn't the (alleged) instances of the past, but the systematic recording and storytelling of the past as done by people. All claims in history are dependent upon the quality of the work produced by historians, see for example the almost continuous series of fallacies produced by journalists attempting to write history from their recollection. Any attempt to state that an article is encyclopedic must then be in line with either the seminal texts produced in a disciplinary context of history, or the primary disputes developed by historians in their analysis of the past. This means that to be complete and "cite sources" an article on a "history of x" must demonstrate that it lies within the disciplinary discourse of "x": it must demonstrate the historiography which produced the article. This can be as simple as "The seminal work produced by E.P. Thompson has dictated the study of the emergence of a working class in England." or as complex as "Initial studies of the causes of the first world war denoted primarily diplomatic causes(Foo, Bar); this was followed by a tendency to analyse the causes in terms of economics(Baz, Bok); but in recent years attention has turned to the role of popular sentiment(Bik, Bang)."
- Failure to do this is like allowing pseudo-science into the wiki without a criticism of it as pseudo-science. Due to the failrue to have a historiography section most articles claiming to be a "history of x" are actually folk- or media- pseudo-histories. A pseudo-history certainly doesn't meet my criteria of comprehensiveness under 2b. And if this is the case for currently featured articles, then our currently featured articles are more an indicator of our status as bad editors: especially when we use the example of a mass of past errors to defend a current error.
- That's why articles on a historical topic should have a historiography section to be featured.Fifelfoo 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll remind you that we're writing encyclopedia articles, not dissertations. While in some isolated cases (generally for broad or contentious topics) a discussion of sources is appropriate, this is not the case for most historical articles, which tend to focus on fairly narrow (and rather obscure) topics. We are explicitly forbidden to declare something the "seminal work" unless we can cite said opinion to an outside source; given that such limitations make a proper analysis of documents (which is all you'll have if there are no major disputes over the topic) all but impossible, I see no reason to require a historiography section as a mere formality. —Kirill Lokshin 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- A historiography section would be a POV section and would be a section of Original thought. By considering the quality of the historians themselves, you either must have bad and unreliable sources, which means that those sources should not have been used and that there would be no necessity for the historiography section. User:Raul654 removed the historiography section in Katyn massacre, deeming it quite unnecessary. Look at all of the {{fact}} in the section before it was removed; there are so many because all of it is unsubstantiable and is original thought. By judging the ability of the historian, you are making POV comments in the article directly, and such should instead be discussed on the talk page (like it was for Katyn massacre. Again, a historiographical section would also be digressive, but it does not directly pertain to the subject of history of x, but instead is a discussion of the sources for history of x, which can then be covered in a subpage.
- By using words like "which claims…", you are making direct inferences about the credibility of the author of the source(s), which is digressive and shouldn't appear on the article anyway. If it was used as a source, great, discuss it on the talk page (which is why it is there) or create a subpage. Besides, by including a historiography section, you are claiming directly that the articles' contents are not infallable/dependable, which then fails it for FA critera 2(c). 2(b) requires that the article be sufficiently comprehensive such that it doesn't miss any major parts of the article... by my comments above, a historiographical section is not a major section of the article by being digressive and superflous. AndyZ 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- A historiography section is not necessarily original research - many areas of history have had information on their historiographies published even if just as part of a more general work. We could quite safely cite these. I think these sections are more applicable to very specific articles, though, dealing with one incident. I don't think we should have a featured article on (say) the February Revolution that didn't make some reference to the different theories about what caused it, for example. I was pointed to this discussion from WP:FAC/History of Portugal (1777-1834), though, and I think that is too broad a topic for a historiography section - it would have to be several sections. If there was a future article on The independence of Brazil, for example, then I can see the value of a historiography section there.--Cherry blossom tree 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with citing historiographies to write such a section is that it creates a circular situation. Which historiographer(s) should we choose? How do we know that the historiographers cited don't have their own biases? Do we need to cite historiographer-ographers as well? I realize this situation is absurd, but without violating WP:NOR, I see no other way a historiography section would work. The Catfish 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- We'd presumably go about it the same way as we would citing historians, no? I can't see how it would be any different to writing the rest of the article.--Cherry blossom tree 10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but if we need to cite historiographers to verify the historians, wouldn't we therefore need to cite historiographer-ographers to verify the historiographers? I can see the value of a historiography section in an article which is forced to depend on only semi-reliable sources, but in the absence of a significant sourcing dispute, I see little value from a blanket historiography requirement. The Catfish 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- We're not citing them to verify the historians, though. Maybe we're using the word to mean different things; historiography (in the sense I'm using it) simply means summarising the writings of various historians for its own ends. In an article on secularisation in western Europe, for example, we could say that the orthodox view was that it was a gradual process beginning with the industrial revolution but that Callum Brown challenged this view by suggesting that it was a rapid process that started in the sixties when women moved away from religion and so on. Obviously there shouldn't be a blanket requirement, but I can see how it'd be useful in some articles.--Cherry blossom tree 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but if we need to cite historiographers to verify the historians, wouldn't we therefore need to cite historiographer-ographers to verify the historiographers? I can see the value of a historiography section in an article which is forced to depend on only semi-reliable sources, but in the absence of a significant sourcing dispute, I see little value from a blanket historiography requirement. The Catfish 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- We'd presumably go about it the same way as we would citing historians, no? I can't see how it would be any different to writing the rest of the article.--Cherry blossom tree 10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with citing historiographies to write such a section is that it creates a circular situation. Which historiographer(s) should we choose? How do we know that the historiographers cited don't have their own biases? Do we need to cite historiographer-ographers as well? I realize this situation is absurd, but without violating WP:NOR, I see no other way a historiography section would work. The Catfish 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- A historiography section is not necessarily original research - many areas of history have had information on their historiographies published even if just as part of a more general work. We could quite safely cite these. I think these sections are more applicable to very specific articles, though, dealing with one incident. I don't think we should have a featured article on (say) the February Revolution that didn't make some reference to the different theories about what caused it, for example. I was pointed to this discussion from WP:FAC/History of Portugal (1777-1834), though, and I think that is too broad a topic for a historiography section - it would have to be several sections. If there was a future article on The independence of Brazil, for example, then I can see the value of a historiography section there.--Cherry blossom tree 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to raise this issue, along with the more general issues of what we should expect in a History article, on Manual Of Style's talk page. [1], can I sugest moving this conversation there to centralise efforts. --Barberio 11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Featured Music Project
I'd like to announce the opening of the Featured Music Project, an attempt to encourage and facilitate successful featured article candidacies and peer reviews for articles on musicians and bands. You can help by evaluating articles, or by working on the articles that are already close to being ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"Should not contain copyright violations?"
University of Arkansas, in the version nominated for FA, contained a "History and Founding" section consisting entirely of three paragraphs copied almost verbatim from this page on the University of Arkansas website.
Should What is a featured article say explicitly that featured articles ought not to contain copyright violations?
I'm not sure whether or not I'm joking. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would be kind of like saying "Featured Articles should not contain Libel." Some things fall under common-sense. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Bish and Bunchofgrapes took the words right out of my mouth. Raul654 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Lists of common problems
Matt Yeager removed the links to User:Taxman/Featured article advice and User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them, saying "userspace links are inappropriate from Wikipedia articles". Clearly links to userspace from actual articles would be inappropriate, but surely we can have links to useful information in userspace in wikispace, no? Quite a few things in wikispace started off in userspace... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with ALoan on this point. However, I implore the main contributors to both of those pages to have them edited. They should be written in nothing less than excellent prose, and bloopers such as "editors that aren't aware" should be fixed promptly. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of the whole idea of FAs. Both pages require a careful run through by a good editor. Tony 12:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's why it's still userified in my case, though I suppose I should get off my assets and go fix it. But Matt's reasoning for removing them is specious, there's no policy against user pages on Wikipedia pages, and common sense would say to leave links to useful ones. Further, repeatedly removing them without discussion when people have added them back is innapropriate. But I'll finally go fix mine and move it to Wikipedia space if it's that big a deal. We could also have a discussion about creating a single article with expanded explanation of the criteria. For those editors that aren't familiar with how they are applied, the concise criteria probably aren't enough to know how to meet them. - Taxman Talk 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Taxman, sorry to have been silent; I'll have a go at that text early March, when I'm freer from work obligations. Tony 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- My point of view is this: I wouldn't want someone to make edits to pages in my userpage (other than to my talk page or maybe a copyedit of my user page). If people are going to link to them from a Wikipedia article, then they had better be editable like anything else. Right? I'm going to ask the two of them if they mind letting everyone else take a crack at editing them mercilessly. If they do mind, then the links need to be removed. Right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Recent point added to the criteria
I agree entirely with the sentiment, but perhaps there should be discussion here before a substantive change is made to the criteria. (The wording is not entirely clear, either.) Tony 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The addition was mine. That reason (which fits perfectly within the MoS, AFAICT) is invoked so frequently in the FAC page it ought to be listed there, I think. Circeus 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- To me that's just part of good writing, so it's already said. There's lots of things the criteria in concise form can't expound on, so they don't. You can't fit every detail in them and still be concise. That's why I wrote my advice and Jengod wrote his, to expand in more detail how the criteria are applied. But I'm also not against having that in there, because it is one of the most common problems I see. What would become a serious instruction creep problem is if every objection at FAC were added as a line item to the criteria. - Taxman Talk 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously. That'd be ridiculous. It's just an explicitation attempted to reduce the amount of times we have to repeat it. After all, we can't make an objection that is not covered anywhere in the FA criteria. (e.g. the reference style) Circeus 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Taxman's right: of course the stubby para problem is irritating to reviewers, but so are other aspects of poor prose that occur just as frequently. Criterion 2a says it all and says nothing at the same time, which is the most practical solution. Spin-off pages are a good idea, given that the official criteria need to ration detail severely to retain their impact and simplicity.
A related issue is that greater levels of detail are likely to be less universally agreed on than the basics. Tony 07:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Citations
We should require use of the new cite format. It solves the problem of citations gravitating from their refrence point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Considering previous discussions about references, I think "strongly encourage" would be a better choice of words than "require". In some articles, a list at the end of common references where many facts for the article were sourced is sufficient. Slambo (Speak) 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- "In the event where refrences or footnotes are used, the cite format is required" work? I'm not looking to require footnotes (I know, drama), rather require that any footnotes be in the new-cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- If there's really that much of a encouraged/required problem, that's fine. ref-note is a terrible, terrible system, which is prone to making previously featured articles have bad references sections (because they have so many of them, keeping them in place is hard). Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- "In the event where refrences or footnotes are used, the cite format is required" work? I'm not looking to require footnotes (I know, drama), rather require that any footnotes be in the new-cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree with that, but there is no official preference between Harvard, inotes, ref/note, cite, or indeed any other system, so long as references are there. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- As usual, Aloan steals the words right out of my mouth. Raul654 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree with that, but there is no official preference between Harvard, inotes, ref/note, cite, or indeed any other system, so long as references are there. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Heh - Raul654 is my sock-puppet and claim my £5. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Done - I've withdrawn the lot of my objections, but please let me note, for the record, strongly, that if there's no a compelling reason NOT to use the ref tags (example - currently broken for harvard refrences) as opposed to the ref-note templates, they are just better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Saffron uses an interesting combination of the <ref> style and the {{Harv}} style. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Featured Music Project
I'd like to invite everyone to participate in the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project. The Featured Music Project is an attempt to improve a large number of articles on musicians to make them ready to be a featured article. To sign up, put your name under one (or more) of the eight categories on the status page, such as the discography, format and style or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for WP:FAC, and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in the section you signed up for (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or on the FMP talk page. Tuf-Kat 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)