Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Arizona

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

History of Arizona

edit

I've worked tirelessly on this article since August 2, trying to bring it up to the same status as History of South Carolina, and I think it's finally there. With luck, this'll be my second state history FA. Toothpaste 21:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better than most FACs I've seen. Support. -- A Link to the Past 22:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Object - The two first sections should be broken up into subsections Fine now Fornadan (t) 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support except for one thing - the intro mentions a "Father Kino" without saying who he is. It would be like starting out President of the United States with "Mr. Bush is the current president". Maybe it's just me. Otherwise, another mindboggingly awesome article from Toothpaste. --Golbez 22:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I fixed both of your complaints. Soon I'll be one FA away from the aclaimed FA medal!Toothpaste 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If Cat makes it, I'll be 0 FAs away from the acclaimed FA medal. :D -- A Link to the Past 22:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object--the "recent events" section is very skimpy, as, indeed, is everything since the American acquisition of the territory. I count 11 screens of text dealing with pre-1846 Arizona, and 1.5 screens of text afterwards. Specifically, there's no mention of it's role as a retirement destination; there's no mention of its current rapid population growth; there's no mention of its current economic structure. In short, move some of the stuff from "European colonization" into a sub-article; use the space you gain to beef up the more modern history, especially the 20th-century stuff. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC) There's enough there for me to support, although I'd like to see more on demographic changes. Nevertheless, a solid article. Meelar (talk) 13:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Object -- agree with Meelar, recent events (the last 100 years) is really short. Otherwise good work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. The contemporary history is so plainly inadequate that this nomination should require no lengthy discussion before rejection. Monicasdude 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) -- Even stronger objection At least two sections of the article are patent copyright violations; most of the recent history text is cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted website maintained by the state of Arizona, without credit or permission. Monicasdude 02:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; a great article, but the recent events has to be expanded a lot. ral315 18:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support as reworded and expanded. Great job. ral315 23:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's great. Andre (talk) 20:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The last 100 years is not all that short. It seems short because Arizona Territory and The Great Depression and the World Wars in Arizona are spun off into their own articles. The last 50 years is not long by any means, but I don't know what interesting material should be placed there that is not already in the existing six paragraphs of "Recent events." --Peter Kirby 00:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, more specifically, I would suggest adding information about the modern economic structure of Arizona; about the demographics of the state in recent times; about the rise of immigration (there isn't any introduction of the issue before the mention of the state of emergency): there's a lot of material that could be covered. Meelar (talk) 16:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the obvious omission is the King holiday controversy, which is simply papered over by the government-approved text text. The article presents the adoption of the King holiday as some sort of laudable initiative by the state's voters, when it actually was the result of an economic boycott, including the NFL's moving a scheduled Super Bowl out of the state. Arizone was the 49th of 50 states to establish the holiday, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so. The article jsut whitewashes the institutional racism and ultra-right-wing influences invovled. I also find it quite odd that the article softpedals the Meachum impeachment and subordinates it to the state's first female governor's taking office. Impeached governors are quite rare, far more so than female governors in the US. Monicasdude 19:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You've gone some distance toward resolving the problems with the specific areas that I identified -- although I think that adopting the state of Arizona's PR depts' POV regarding voter approval of the King holiday is a serious error -- but not toward the more general problem, which others have pointed out in different terms, that presenting a small set of discrete events isn't an effective or appropriate way of presenting recent history. It ought to be a reasonably coherent narrative, not a set of mostly disconnected "milestones." Monicasdude 15:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Toothpaste has worked very hard on this article. Its the perfect length and the headers are perfect and the images are fine. I <3 it. Redwolf24 03:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, too many short paragrahs, where two short paragraphs discuss the same event they should be merged into one; the Early Spanish Expeditions and Missionization of the Pimería Alta sections are candidates for this and since this part of the article is identical to European colonization of Arizona it could potentially be further summarised. Since recent events covers 60 years it could be expanded as already mentioned, and the short pargraphs expanded, the summary of the The Great Depression and the World Wars in Arizona could also be extended. I can see this is a summary article, but you're in a difficult position since the articles it summaries aren't done yet, you might want to flesh out the daughters and then you'll have a better picture of how much to include from each daughter in this article.--nixie 07:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the Great Depression and the World Wars section and summarized the European colonization section. Toothpaste 15:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The balance of the text is much better now. I have removed my objection.--nixie 23:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added four website references. Are they good enough? Toothpaste 21:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For scholarly references, this remains lean. I see only one general scholarly work on the subject, and it has not been cited specifically at any point. I would prefer to see evidence that a variety of scholarly accounts have been consulted, allowing controversies in the historiography to be identified. Also, the four notes that have been added seem lean. Verifiability should be given greater attention. I would, for example, note that the Anschluss article, the only FA to which I have substantially contributed, has 22 notes and cites 6 scholarly or primary sources — and we've still had disagreements since FA promotion about verifiability of some of the claims. I think this points to the need for a good deal more research. Buffyg 22:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I think chalking up Goldwater's defeat to the JFK assassination is a substantial mischaraterisation of the 1964 presidential election. LBJ's campaign didn't just win a sympathy vote in promising fidelity to Kennedy's legacy, it persuaded quite a few people that Goldwater was not competent for the presidency (e.g. the famous "Daisy Girl" commercial) and too far to the right (his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and much of the New Deal). This makes me substantially concerned about the quality of research behind matters about which I know less. Buffyg 22:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem... References are all that is needed according to the criteria as long as they contain the bulk of the information in the artilce. Footnotes and citations are at best a bonus. Do not compare articles based on amount of footnotes, since a lot of articles, whether they're good or not, tend to go absolutely bonkers in using footnotes. It's pretty easy to tell that it's people who've never written an academic paper in their life and have little previous experience with them. Use {{inote}}s when referencing uncontroversial and uncomplicated statements to avoid needless cluttering of the text. There is absolutely nothing in the criteria that demands notes, only that it be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", and "inline citations" is not a synonym for footnote to begin with. / Peter Isotalo 14:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification accepted, but I begin to suspect that with this clarification alone, we may loose the plot. A single scholarly source is not sufficient research, particularly should that work approach tertiary literature (i.e. is a synthesis of the secondary literature), as can be the case with generalist texts on a large subject. Full stop. There needs to be some adherence to a "teach the conflicts" approach, expanded to "teach and attribute". I'll grant that there are plenty of ways to establish citation — my point here is that citation has been generally neglected, whether by inline notes, footnotes, or more mundane textual devices like "According to Karmosin," or "Buffyg argues in Some Book...". Buffyg 16:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all the way. Toothpaste's obvious hard work and effort have paid off. All "touches", big or small, have made this article into something that's actually an interesting and comfortable read. Rob Church Talk | Desk 00:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Arizona&oldid=1138462781"