Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Pittsburgh/archive3

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

The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 16:31, 12 November 2008 [1].

History of Pittsburgh[edit]

Nominator(s): Grsz11 (talk)
previous FAC (16:58, 22 May 2007)

I'm disappointed the two previous editors invoved with this article, User:Tomcool and User:PadreNuestro are no longer active, but I would like to nominate this article on their behalf. I do not feel there was enough discussion around the last nomination, and I believe the few issues raised were addressed since then. I will be available for editing as this process occurs. Grsz11 →Review! 04:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.wqed.org/erc/pghist/units/WPAhist/keyevents.html deadlinked
  • http://www.wqed.org/erc/pghist/units/WPAhist/wpa6.shtml deadlinked
  • Current ref 3 (Pitz, Marylynne...) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 4 (The Indian Wars...) is this a book? If so, should be in italics. Also if it's a book, it needs a page number. And if it was originally published in 1831, might there not be something a bit more .. recent available that will better reflect current scholarship on the issue?
  • Current ref 5 (Cook, Noble David...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 6 (Agnew, Daniel...) is this a book? If so.. title in italics, and again, surely we have something more current than 1894?
  • Current ref 7, i'm unclear why the external link is there. If this is a book, title in italics. Author should be listed first to conform with the rest of the references.
  • Current ref 8 (Course of study...) Title in italics, the publisher (Board of Education) isn't in italics.
  • Current ref 9 has a formatting issue.
  • Current ref 10 (Lorant, Stefan) needs page numbers. ISBN would be nice also.
  • Current ref 11 (Crumrine...) title should be in italics. Also, it's from 1882, surely there is something more recent?
  • Current ref 12 (Albert, George...) nees a page number.
  • Current ref 13 (Jackson, Donald...) needs more information in order to locate the information. Publisher and page numbers at the very least.
  • Current ref 14 (Standard History...) needs a publisher and surely there is something more recent than 1898?
  • Current ref 16 (Anderson, Fred..) needs a page number
  • Current ref 17 (Unwritten history..) title in italics, needs page number, surely something more recent than 1917 is available?
  • Current ref 18 (Encyclopedia Britanica 11th edition).. surely something more recent? And there are online versions of this that could be linked.
  • Current ref 19 (Keeping house..) author listed first, is this a book or a journal article? Needs page numbers.
  • Current ref 20 (The Story of Grant's Hill..) is this a book? Needs italics, and page number
  • Current ref 21 (Through 150 years...) title in italics, author first, page numbers. Also, publisher.
  • Current ref 22 (Monogahela...) I can't decipher this ref. What's the publisher (Wiley�? Or Richard Taylor? Or Ziegler Company?) What's the title? Is it a book? Needs page numbers
  • Current ref 24 (History of Allegheny..) who is the author and who is the publisher? Author goes before title. Title in italics, surely there is more recent scholarship than 1889?
  • Current ref 25 (Ballou's Pictoral) what's the name of the article? Journal title should be in italics.
  • Current ref 26 (Darby's Emigrant's Guide) ... need more information in order to verify this source per WP:V
  • Current ref 28 (A Century and a half...) who is the author and who is the publisher? Title in titalics, needs page number, surely something more recent than 1908?
  • Current ref 29 (History of the Allegheny Fire...) title in italics, page number, surely we have more recent information than 1894?
  • Current ref 31 (Otto Krebs..) need more inforamtion in order to verify this source per WP:V
  • Current ref 32 (History of Pittsburgh...) authors need to go first, title in italics, is this actually published?
  • Current ref 33 (Kenneth A Heineman...) author should be last name first, needs page numbers
  • Current ref 34 (Allegheny County's ..) who's the publisher? Who is the author? Author lists first, title in italics, needs page number, surely there is something more recent than 1888?
  • Current ref 35 (Westinghouse..) needs publisher
  • Current ref 36 (Harper's Weekly...) needs the title of the article, the journal title goes in italics, and surely we have a more current source than 1877?
  • Current ref 37 (The Gospel of Wealth...) Title in italics, author lists first, needs publisher and page numbers.
  • Current ref 40 (The 2002 Pittsburgh...) is this an acutally published study? If so, we need more information in order to locate it for verifiablity.
  • Current ref 43 (And the Wolf ...) title should be in italics, author listed first, needs page numbers
  • Current ref 47 links to a wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source.
  • Current ref 49, needs more information so that the source can be verified.
  • Per the MOS, curly quotes shouldn't be used.
  • I note unreferenced statements and paragraphs in the article (Fifth, sixth & eighth paragraphs of Gateway, sentences in Iron City, a number of sentences in Steel City, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Reniassance, scattered sentences throughout.)
  • I find the overreliance on older references enough to oppose, not to mention the disorganized nature of the references and the lack of referencing for a number of paragraphs. Pittsburgh's a big city, there is no need to rely on 19th century historical works for this article.
Otherwise, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. I think I've addressed most of the sourcing issues. As far as page numbers, there's really nothing I can do. If that's enough for it to fail, I guess that's that. Grsz11 →Review! 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images meet criteria, although you might want to jigger the layout- it looks a bit right-aligned and cluttered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, this is not the case. Please see list below. Awadewit (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
  • The images in this article are poorly laid out in the article, often smooshed together. I suggest that some of them be removed. See WP:MOS#Images for suggestions on image layout.
  • Image:Forts at Forks of Ohio.png - This image needs to list its source documents in more detail than just "19th-century histories". Also, we need to know who created this map so that we know who is releasing the copyright.
Removed.
  • Image:Fort Pitt 1795 large.jpg - To claim "life of author plus 70 years", it is best to include at least a death date for the author. If you can't establish the death date of the author, it might be best to switch this to a "published before 1923" license.
Changed.
Removed.
Removed.
  • Image:Allegheny City.jpg - This image has no description, no source, and no author information that would allow us to verify the license claim.
Removed.
I believe I did what you asked, but I'm not positive. Let me know.
No - the new link says nothing about CC license on it. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Pittsburgh1920.jpg - The source link for this image does not take us directly to the image. The description is missing author and date information. There is no way to verify the license.
Fixed link.
Link is still broken - still cannot verify government license. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might take some time to find this information, but I am confident that these image issues can be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I fixed those problems correcty. I'm not sure about the drawn maps, it seems like a product that would had to have been purchased by the original uploader, is a link to nemis.nl sufficient? Grsz11 →Review! 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. If it has to be purchased, we cannot link to it. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed those two to pre-1923 permissions. I'm not sure if it works for the Fowler image. Grsz11 →Review! 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Comments Under external links, why are coordinates listed for history of Pittsburgh? Is the history a location too? Also, I have to note that the article doesn't discuss the etymology of the name Pittsburgh vs. Pittsburg. It seems to be an important part of the story. Also, I think the couple bulleted lists in the text look a little silly; I would recommend converting into prose. I should note, however, that it's great to see work put on this article. Great work done by all involved! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multiple noms: I'm sorry that I missed this and that no other reviewer has mentioned it. You have two nominations running, both needing significant work still. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC regarding one nom at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that. I suppose I withdraw this one then. Grsz11 →Review! 20:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I don't have two. Grsz11 →Review! 22:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs, primarily on sourcing and prose issues. Please note that the prose examples below are examples only - there are similar issues throughout the article. I only read in depth through the Early colonization section, so this list is not comprehensive.

  • I would link the river names in the first sentence of the article body (otherwise people who don't read the lead might be confused as to whether those are rivers or something else, since the word river is never mentioned)
  • Early in the article, I'm already seeing issues with awkward wording, especially where an idea is fragmented in multiple sentences when it would make more sense to present it in one.
    • Example 1 - "Paleo-Indians conducted a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the region perhaps as early as 19,000 years ago. Meadowcroft Rockshelter, an archaeological site west of Pittsburgh, provides evidence that these first Americans lived in the region from that date" Perhaps could be "Archealogical evidence suggests that Paleo-Indians inhabited the region as early as 19,000 years ago."
    • Example 2 - "During the Adena culture that followed, Mound Builders erected a large Indian Mound at the future site of McKees Rocks, about three miles (5 km) from the head of the Ohio. The Indian Mound, a burial site, was augmented in later years by members of the Hopewell culture" could be "The subsequent Adena culture (1000 to 200 BC) were mound builders. One of their burial sites, now known as Indian Mound, is located at the current site of McKees Rocks, about .... This was also used by members of the Hopewell culture."
  • Watch for repetition in your phrasing: "migrated up" - just "migrated"
  • How could the tribes have been devastated by european diseases prior to the arrival of European explorers?
  • I don't understand why the last paragraph in the first section (in 1749, when Conrad Weiser...) is there. Chronologically, that belongs in the next section. Otherwise, we are being told what happened after Pittsburgh exists before we learn that the city was established.
  • Lots of "first..." in the first paragraph of Early colonization (4 in the first 3 sentences). Can this be reworded somewhow?
  • If traders started settlements in 1717, how could Europeans first begin to settle the region in 1748?
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, don't use callout quotes. Quotations of under 4 lines should also not be offset, but should be part of the paragraph
  • Is there any information about the "settlement between the rivers"? The section talked about the various forts, but not any settlements
  • I am disturbed at the sources that were chosen. There are a few books listed, but they are references a small number of times compared to the other sources. This makes me wonder whether only free pages from Google Books were used rather than actually consulting the whole book. Books, especially academic books, are considered Wikipedia's most reliable sources, and especially in a history article those should be the ones most often consulted. Otherwise, how do we know that the article is comprehensive and appropriately balancing. Choosing X article on Y topic and Z article on topic A could miss huge topic B just because it wasn't as easy to find. Also, many of the books that are consulted are very old - they may miss some information or interpret things differently than a more modern work would. The sources are also not formatted consistently.
  • Some of the sources used are also not appropriate
    • heinzfamily.org is not a reliable source
    • When at all possible, we should not rely on tertiary sources, like the Encyclopedia Britannica
    • We need page numbers for the books that are listed; otherwise it is very difficult to verify
    • FortPittmuseum.com should not be used unless this was written by a historian. Same with anything from the national park service that is discussing history rather than the parrk
    • Is city-data.com a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination per reasons addressed. Grsz11 →Review! 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Pittsburgh/archive3&oldid=1136097372"