[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Shortcut

Good articles are a higher status of article than regular articles. In order to become a good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the GA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as good articles have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Good articles and are placed in Category:Good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.


Archives

Proposals for good articles

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion. This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc. 

=== Article name ===
{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

No reason why this should not be a good article. Its content and size is similar to that of its English Wikipedia counterpart, which is an FA. It appears comprehensive enough and has sufficient sources, so I think it can easily be made a GA with few fixes. NotImportant (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States

History of the United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I am renominating this for GA. It came very close to making GA a few months ago, but we just ran out of time. The reviews from then are in the archives. A point-by-point of how this meets all the GA criteria:

  1. it’s a Meta 10,000 Article
  2. Over 80 KBs long; touches on major themes while still adhering to summary style
  3. Edited by at least seven editors
  4. Properly categorized, dozens of interwiki links
  5. Has not had a major revision in months. Only revisions have been vand reverts, interwikis, and a little addition on social contracts
  6. No red links, hundreds of blue links
  7. Done
  8. No templates
  9. 160 references from dozens of different works; all references that can use {{cite book or a similar template, all have author, date, title, publisher, URL and ISBN when available

I think this is pretty clearly GA, maybe even VGA. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support a few minor concerns, but otherwise good. --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t — c — l) 20:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, very nice start, and I've been over the article a dozen or so times in the past. I've made a few minor corrections and will continue to do so. In the meantime some bigger issues in the first few sections:

  • A large lead with three refs only. I would be tempted to remove all citations since everything in the lead should be referenced later in the article.
checkYRefs have been rmed from lead...some might have to be brought down to the body. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found two dead links earlier, and two disambiguation links.
External or internal? And which ones? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that, two external links. I use the tool on en.wiki to find them, the link is here... linky. Plus Georgia and West Coast are the dabs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rights" I'm not sure this is instantly simple.
checkYLinked to civil rights Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today, the United States is thought of as the only superpower in the world" I would remove this. You're using one reference only to support it, it's someone's POV and isn't necessary. Moreover, it's in the lead but not mentioned in the article itself, so it either has to be expanded upon in the article or removed from the lead. checkY
  • "At that time, Native Americans lived in the United States." not really, there was no such thing as the United States when the natives lived there.
checkYChanged to "...lived on the land that is now the United States"
  • "However, they did not settle there." is unreferenced. You may know this, but I don't. Prove it.
checkYIt's covered in the reference for the previous sentence...should I copy that reference, or just move the reference one sentence further? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move the ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC) checkY[reply]
  • You suddenly mention "the Americas". This could be confusing to a non-expert since this is about USA not "the Americas".
checkYLinked Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and started the colony of Rhode Island in 1636." cite please. You may take it for granted, but I don't and I want you to prove it. checkY
  • "o settle what would become the United States. In the 1500s, Spain built a fort at Saint Augustine, Florida.[10] France settled Canada, ..." when did Canada become part of the US?
checkYCut Canada, kept the places in the United States Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adopted the English way of life" is that Simple English?
How would you phrase that clause to convey the meaning I'm trying for? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"lived like English people"? I dunno, but I think that the current phrasing is too complex. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was like in 1700 " in that year only? Or that era?
Changed "in" to "around" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have led to the thinking used in the American Revolution" I don't get this at all.
Historians believe that the Great Awakening was a precussor to revolutionary thought and organization Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the wording in the article is unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you insist on linking fish, do it for fishing which appears before fish. checkY
  • " or the French and Indian War. The English won." merge - "War, which the English won." and reference it. checkY
  • "Many colonists who wanted to move to the frontier did not like the Proclamation." prove this please.
See comment about Vikings...same idea about ref in the sentence before and where to put it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't leave "last sentences" hanging without ref, move the ref to the end if in doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC) checkY[reply]

More soon if this starter is taken in the right way. Re: refs, if you really think this is VGA quality, everything questioned will need refs, so that's the approach I'd take if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain you don't call common knowledge correctly, but I'll mostly cow-tow. I've made most of your fixes, expect for the links (because I don't know which ones you're talking about), and the references to the Vikings and the Proclamation (because I don't know how you'd call the quandary I mentioned) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your "common knowledge" is different from mine, different from somebody from India, somebody from China, somebody who's 8 years old etc etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'd mostly cow-tow...but remember, not everything need be referenced, even for a GA. See this for more on citation guidelines. Oh, and it's going to get crowded here if we put a full review here, so could you put the rest of the review on the talk page? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a guideline. That is an essay, aka one (or more) users opinion. Rambling Man is correct here, you can't write for just one audience aka the US. Because what is common to you isn't common to someone on the other side of the world. Its a generally accepted principle that if a statement can be questioned it needs a cite. -DJSasso (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "can it be questioned", it's "is it controversial?" I don't see how the start and end dates of a major global conflict qualify as controversial. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being questioned is equivalent to controversial. To use your example about the British winning the French Indian war. There are very large chunks of the world and indeed your own country that would not know that. Something that would not need a cite would be something along the lines of Washington is the capital of the United States. But who won a war would very much need a cite, in fact I can't even think of a better example of when a cite would be needed. Because who won a war is often controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, there is a cite now. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't even gotten to the voting stage yet, or even finished reviewing it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done reviewing. You've made it clear you're entirely ungrateful for anything I propose. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodvac
That was a misuse of the CN template...it is generally used only for stuff that is blatently controversial. Again, I remind you that even for GA/VGA, saying "every assertion needs to be sourced" is wrong. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's plainly false, and I never used the CN template. Sure, citations are unnecessary for any random article, but if you're trying for GA or VGA (the best quality articles), everything needs to be sourced. Else you could be accused of engaging in original research. Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delink dates throughout (I believe AWB does this)
  • I will be doing some copyediting in the next couple days.
  • Overall, a thorough and well-sourced article. I'd say it meets both GA and VGA criteria. By the way, I've noticed that the GA criteria and the VGA criteria are identical except VGAs need to be more comprehensive. Is that the only difference? Goodvac (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This probably will get nommed for VGA awhile after it makes it makes GA Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: this is such a long article that has gone through so many revisions that it needs a really thorough check. I don't have to time to go line by line myself, but many items that need attention are on the Talk page under: Some more issues. When those are done, I may have time for more. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable References-Not Ready

Looking at the above discussion of to cite or not to cite led me to actually look at some of the citations. It is not enough for citations to exist, they must be accurate and relevant. I don't have access to a good English language library for the book sources, so I just started looking at some of the online references. I have listed problematic references below. If this is the quality of the online refs that can be checked, it brings into the question the accuracy and relevance of the book references that I cannot. I could not look at all cases, but EN has significantly different references in some of these cases.

Also, we've been here before with this article. This has been nommed and renommed. Hard to tell if any of the outstanding issues from the last nomination were resolved, but there was not much revision since the last nom expired (point 5 above in this renom). All of this leads me to believe that this subject is just too broad and too demanding to bring up to GA at this time with the group of editors we have now. As others have pointed out, comments on my Talk page in response to a thoughtful and careful review such as "Why don't you do the last three yourself? They shouldn't be hard to find" show that the nominating editor is not committed to getting this through to GA and once again responding to help with "You do it".

Troubling citations follow:

  • "France settled Louisiana, and the area around the Great Lakes. The Dutch settled New York, which they called New Netherland. Other areas were settled by Scotch-Irish, Germans, and Swedes.[9]" to ↑"Colonial North America". Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham University. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Links to a list of primary source documents; mainly English, some French and Dutch-no mention of the other groups as far as I can tell. Each settlement pattern/activity (French, Dutch, Irish, Germans, New Sweden, etc) should be referenced by a non-primary source. Reference must be replaced.


  • "Indians were being pushed out of the Midwest and South by events such as the Trail of Tears and the Black Hawk War.[56]" to "Choctaw Nation History". Choctaw Nation. Retrieved 2010-09-19.
This links to landing page. "Trail of Tears" is a header. Searched site but Black Hawk War not found-in any event not on the page linked. Cite needed for Black Hawk War. Reference does not fully support statement.


  • "During this time, many people moved to the United States from other countries, such as Ireland, Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe, and China.[69]" to ↑ Michael Powell (2006-09-21). "Old fears over new faces". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2010-10-28.
News article primarily about present-day responses to immigration. No specific statistics given for the groups of people coming to the US at the time of the section "Reconstruction and the Gilded Age". No mention of Chinese, only their exclusion. Reference does not support statement.
Statistics need not be given as there are no actual numbers. Only proof that the people actually came need be given Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If if your standard "Only proof that the people actually came need be given" is OK, ref has no statement on Chinese immigration (Which, by the way, is a fundamental weakness of this article-Euro/Anglo focus to exclusion of almost anything else.) The statement was "many" and that needs a source. But the main point is that this is just sloppy or lazy referencing. Get it from a history textbook, book, or article, not popular journalism on a somewhat related topic. Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Another response to the Muckrakers was something called “Trust-Busting”, where big businesses were broken up into smaller ones.[84]" to ↑ Reed, Lawrence W. (August 2005). "Where’s the Beef?". The Freeman. Retrieved 2010-08-23.
The article is about regulation, not trust-busting. Trust-busting not mentioned. Even if moved to the section on regulation, it does not support. The article is actually making the case that books such as The Jungle causing regulation is myth. Quote: In 1906, in large part because of the firestorm Sinclair generated, Congress passed the famous Meat Inspection Act. A century later, American schoolchildren are still taught a simplistic and romanticized version of this history. They think that unscrupulous capitalists were routinely tainting our meat, and that the moral crusader Sinclair rallied the public and Congress to act. Government then shifted from bystander to do-gooder and disciplined the marketplace to protect its millions of victims. But this is a triumph of myth over reality, of ulterior motives over good intentions. Quote: As popular myth would have it, there were no government inspectors before Congress acted in response to The Jungle and the greedy meat packers fought federal inspection all the way. The truth is that not only did government inspection exist, but meat packers themselves supported it and were in the forefront of the effort to extend it! Reference actually contradicts the statement. Remove and rewrite.
Remove, yes. Replace, yes. Rewrite, no. Can easily find a reference that supports the sentence Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rewrite. Which is it? Either the reference you initially cited is correct (And it makes a pretty strong case that your description of the effect of muckraking has been overblown) and this needs to be rewritten. Or, you just tacked that ref on there without actually reading past the first paragraph or two, in which case it isn't researched and needs to be redone. You've already cited evidence against what you've written, you can't just ignore that and say you'll find another reference that says what you want it to. You've got the process backwards. Read and understand, then write. Don't write what you "know" and then cherry-pick refs to support that in the face of contrary evidence (some of which you've provided yourself). Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those were just the ones I checked, but the rest are therefore now questionable and I just don't have the resources or interest to verify them. The subject of this article is very demanding. This article shows deep flaws. It needs a fundamental rethink and rewrite before it is nominated yet again. It may be that this article is beyond the abilities and resources of the current group of editors to raise to GA standard. Gotanda (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I fail to see how looking at 2% of the references can be a basis to claim that all the references are flawed...you essentially say you do not care to look at any of the other references, and unless you do, the presumption should be that the other references work (keeping in mind that the other references come from different sources). What leads you to believe that there are flaws in the content or information provided? Your comments seem to be about the references (and this is clearly not most of the citations; as most of them are books) than the content. I do not think the article is fundamentally flawed; I have worked many hours on it and believe that all the information contained is true, accurate, and easily verifible from a history textbook if more thorough references don't work. I take the assertion that the information provided there is factually inaccurate as a borderline personal attack. Finally, different issues have come up in this review than in past reviews...the issues from past reviews have been resolved (and no one had any major issues with the facts in the article in any prior review; leading me to believe that most agree with the facts as presented). Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at just 2%. And I didn't write that all the references are flawed. As I wrote, I could only check online refs. I checked about 10 and found 4 that were seriously flawed before I gave up. That's a 40% fail rate. Not good. (If you want another one, how about this? ↑ "About the Great Depression". University of Illinois. Retrieved 2010-08-24.[105] An anonymous essay from a poetry resource website? That's just picking one ref as a random sample and checking.) That shows a fundamental problem. Your responses to the incorrect references here just confirms that the other references are "questionable" (Note: I never said all them were wrong, just questionable. They need to be checked if the mistakes seen here so far are anything to go on. Referencing is a skill.)
I did say the article was flawed. Aside from references, there are other problems: 1) perspective (as described above by others); 2) quality of writing-still finding unclear sentences throughout and basic grammatical errors at this point means it isn't close to ready; 3) scope-this totally ignores or gives short shrift to important aspects of US history, or they are tacked on without much integration; 4) it just isn't written simply (I know, you disagree. Looking at it from the point of view of a language learner can be difficult to do.) 5) lastly, the whole point of doing the article this way-aims and methods. Taking a topic this broad and important and setting out to create a VGA from scratch is an incredibly difficult writing challenge. Look at the GAs and VGAs. They tend to be on more manageable subjects. If you really want US history GA and VGA articles, I'd suggest selecting more limited topics from US history and building up--start with the "daughter" articles. (That ignores the whole point of whether hunting for VGA stars is the right way to go, or whether it is better to just make articles as high quality as possible and if they meet GA/VGA, great.) Finally, so much of this is sourced/referenced from just two high school or first year university textbooks, Blum and Foner. They may be fine textbooks, but not a broad or substantial enough foundation to build such a big article on. How many nominations has this been through with the same types of problems cropping up again and again? Not ready. And at this rate, not likely to be ready any time soon. Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme concede some of your points for the time being, and focus on a few points in particular...your arguments that the article lacks in scope and has a systemic bias. I seriously doubt that important aspects have been left out, and challenge you to find one and justify why it merits inclusion. When you have mentioned this before, most of the things you have mentioned have been fairly unimportant or tangential (hence why they don't flow), and don't really belong in an article of this size (some of the things you had mentioned earlier were either inaccurate or non-neutral; or would have undue weight if added to this article). I have three counters to your alledged Euro-Centric bias argument:
  1. That doesn't jibe with the fact that there is extensive coverage of African-Americans in this article (most sections of the article have whole paragraphs devoted to them; smaller sections go out of their way to be sure to mention the black experience), and not-inconsequential coverage of Native Americans. Also, you had mentioned foreign relations earlier; there is clearly substantial coverage of US relations with England, Germany, the USSR, and Latin America
  2. Other editors (Mac in the last go-around) have thought it wasn't Eurocentric enough; I believe this
  3. (The Un-PC one; but very pro-Brit so Mac will like it) So what if it's a tad Eurocentric? It can justifiable be so. Americans learn English in school. The American system of government is derived from English, French and Greek philosophers. America's folk music has Scotch-Irish roots (that's why I voted keep on the S-I article earlier this week). The American economic model was based on British industrial models. The US has been greatly and inextricably influenced by Europe in almost every aspect of its culture


Also, with regard to the Blum/Foner contact, a solid majority of the references do NOT come from Blum or Foner (indeed, there are multiple references from two other textbooks, Bailey and Boyer), those books are indeed decent textbooks (written by well-respected historians), and this would hardly be the first time that a GA was based primarily on one or two books Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the analysis that this is largely based upon Blum and Foner. But I'll add Bailey as well. Changes nothing. Not ready.
  • Blum 25, references, listed in Selected Readings
  • Foner 9, references, listed in Selected Readings
36 out of 172 references
  • Kennedy, Cohen, and Bailey 12, listed in Selected Readings, but not ref'd as Blum and Foner are for some reason which made it harder to spot as a repeated reference. Style fix needed there and another indication of the level of care taken in referencing on an article that has been nominated several times.
That gets 48 out of 172 references. There plenty other single refs (5 of which I've just pointed out are not acceptable). The article is heavily based on those two (or now three) textbooks that are broad surveys. No matter how good they are (and I'm perfectly willing to accept that they are good high school textbooks), three high school/freshman uni texts are just not enough to sustain an article this ambitious. If you have access to a good university library with books in English (I sure wish that I did), you should be able to read multiple sources and then use them. It's the history of a large, complex, and important country, not a train, hurricane, or bird. If other GAs and VGAs are based on one or two books, that is a separate issue, but I'd hope they are on more limited topics. Take that issue up in the appropriate place. Although the last thing we need right now is another PAD.
In any event, always replying with a "but you did X" or "somebody else did Y" doesn't change the fact that this article is nowhere near ready.
  • Check Boyar (sic) 2 Boyer 5: Looks like some work to do there.
Can we please move on to something that is working now. Gotanda (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ted, 48 out of 172...that's less than 30%. I see no problem at all with that number. That means 70% come from other places. Hardly sustaining this article. And there isn't a requirement that states that you have to use multiple sources (although this article uses more than 80 different sources, so it would pass anyway). Whether or not there should be is an open question, but there isn't now. Can I at least get some support from somebody that it's OK to have 30-40% come from MULTIPLE RELIABLE PEER-REVIEWED textbooks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment read. You're shouting now. No other response at this time. Thanks. Gotanda (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

I don't think this is near GA. I agree with many of the criticisms above, but will just mention here some other angles.

  1. There are problems with the perspective and quality of writing. The intro is a good example. It has no perspective. A series of short sentences that don't flow together, and seem jerky. I could run a seminar on the first paragraph alone. ("The United States was settled mostly by England": No, literally wrong, confused and ungrammatical; "English people went to Jamestown, Virginia": No, they didn't). By contrast, the enWP intro has a bit of class. There is some scene-setting, and the prose (though too complex for us) is better written.
    There is too much vague hand-waving of the "...people in the Northern states and people in the Southern states did not like each other very much, mostly due to the issues of slavery in the territories (parts of the United States that were not yet states...)" kind. It's so badly written. Does it mean people in the northern states were more concerned about slavery in the territories than they were about slavery in the southern states? I don't think so, but who knows?
How does the sentences being jerky mean it's lacking in perspective? Perspective means context, not flow Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Very serious indeed is the insertion of many POV clauses all through the article, most of which are not supported by refs. I think the article may be flaggable on that score alone. I enjoyed this bit of POV-by-omission: "In 1845, Texas, which was a nation after it left Mexico, joined the United States." A reader would no doubt be surprised to find out from en:Texas Annexation what really happened!

Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, I hate to say this, but your historical assertions are somewhat wrong. The things written that you mention are true, just lacking in clarily. Jamestown was settled by people from England...John Smith was from; John Rolfe was from Norfolk, &c. To say that it wasn't settled by English people is a grave inaccuracy. It is not wrong to say that the United States was settled primarily by people from England (as long as you point out that this is in reference to the colonial period); more people from England came to the colonies than anywhere else, and the English way of life was (and still is) dominant in American society. I have reworded that sentence to clarify that it is referring to the colonial period. There is nothing wrong or POVy about the way the Texas Republic and annexation are described, the events are accurate as described...Texas left Mexico, was an independent nation and almost immediately tried to become part of the United States, succeeding in 1845. That's "what really happened" . In English article relating to this period, there is no mention of the Texas Republic (so we do it one better) and it says "American annexation of the Republic of Texas in 1845 was unacceptable to Mexico and led to war"; I've simplified it to "Texas...joined the United States. Mexico did not like this", and talk about how the war started later in the paragraph (I seem to recall this isn't the first time you and I have come into conflict on Mexican War-related information; you've argued that the Mexican War had immense importance; whereas I relegate a little further down due to the fact that its importance was more limited). Furthermore, you ask the question "were people in the Northern states more concerned about slavery in the territories than in the Northern slaves", and the answer to that question is essentially "Yes". A broader base of people supported ending slavery in the territories than ending slavery everywhere; the Free Soil and Republican parties ran more on platforms of Free Soil (meaning stop slavery in the territories only). People supported this not only because Free Soil was a more stomachable position politically, but also because many felt slavery would eventually die out if confined to the Southern states. Part of the reason some of these sentences sound quirky because we are limited to mostly BE1500 words, and also because summary style dictates relegating some explanations to daughter article. With regard to POV, I see no POV tags, and I believe that any that are placed are in error Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I was not making comments about historical facts; I was making comments about inexact or incorrect use of language.
  2. Others can see how many unsupported evaluative statements or remarks there are in the article. Dozens, possibly hundreds.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. I would seriously doubt that there are that many. Your apparant assertion that the article is non-neutral is completely untrue Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He does have a point there are a fair number of comments that contain a POV. One example that immediately jumped out at me since you two are talking about the Jamestown stuff is "interested in money and adventure". Who says they were interested in money and adventure? Do you say it? Does the source say it? Based on your edit comment I am guessing the source doesn't say it because you are just commenting on if Jamestown happened or not. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does too state it in the reference Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately since you used a paper reference I can't verify it. But with the inaccuracy of your other references I am not totally convinced. -DJSasso (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another example right from the lead. "The growth of the English colonies was not good for the Native Americans" Says who? There is no cite showing who says that. Many people argue that while there was a hardship to them and wars that it was a good thing. Bringing advancement etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And "Many of the people who helped write the Constitution, such as Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris, were among the major thinkers in America at the time." Who said they were major thinkers? Washington certainly wasn't. Again no cite here to prove what you are claiming. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first one has been reworded, and was cited down in the body. I have added a citation for the other one. To say that Washington didn't give a hoot about political theory (which is what you seem to be implying) is somewhat inaccurate...prior to the Constitutional Convention, there was a lengthy correspondence between Washington and Madison on the nature of the nation. Do you really believe that there DOZENS or HUNDREDS of these evaluative statements? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds maybe not. But I only read about 4 paragraphs and found 3. So it wouldn't be a leap to think there are a couple dozen in an article this long. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related pages

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles&oldid=2809301"