Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Miami, Florida

History of Miami, Florida

Self-nom. I started the article as a breakoff of the Miami, Florida article but I decided why not make it Featured, I provided most of the content, AndyZ and a few other users helped me with it. Here is its peer review and I fixed AndyZ concerns of it by replacing the images. I think it's ready for featured status. Thanks --Secret ^{wat's sup} 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A solid, well-rounded historical article. Very informative, and full of citations. I like it. Deckiller 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support denies an irc cabal may exist or that benon is a member for that matter shifty eyed support!--Benon 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aranda56 has been working very hard to get this article this far; he even learned how to do footnotes, which I know was a pain for him. ;) I think it's well-written and infomative.--Shanel 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Though the intro still bugs me a bit. -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 23:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really comprehensive article. BlueShirts 02:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took a peek; the photos are copyright-ok, very concise and complete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per all the above. Street walker 10:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support~~Comment~~- The article is very close to FA status. A couple of issues- more copyediting needs to be done (which I'm still working on), since there seems to be ~~several~~ errors with comma use and other spelling/grammar errors. Also, I would suggest taking out some of the lesser facts in the Twentieth Century section and moving them to the subpage to prevent the article from becoming too large. At the same time, some of the other events should be expanded, ~~such as the Great Depression, which receives a cursory 1-sentence about the depression.~~ AndyZ 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded some info on the Great Depression, thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm nearly done with the copyediting. AndyZ 20:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I finished copyediting through the entire article; I also added to the Native American section and took out a few things from the 20th century section, so I'm changing my vote to support. AndyZ 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~ Support
- The first paragraph under "Native Americans" is just about the origin of the name "Miami", which doesn't seem appropriate here (generally, location articles contain this information, e.g. Miami, Florida), and that section should be the history of Native Americans in Miami. A mention that Miami comes from a native language would be fine.
- Native Americans ~~are known to have~~ settled If the intent is to imply that "more than 10,000 years" is an approximate estimate, then say that. e.g. The earliest evidence of Native Americans in the Miami region comes from more than 10,000 years ago.
  - Fixed. AndyZ 01:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"The early inhabitants created a variety of weapons and tools from shells and constructed their homes from cypress logs" This seems very flippant, and the previous sentence doesn't show its relevance.~~ Tuf-Kat 23:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~I put {{fact}} there.~~ AndyZ 01:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found a reference for the shell part, so I removed the cyprus logs part until it can be cited and added the new reference. This also eliminates the problem of flippancy, since that probably is more related to the pine/hardwood - cyprus trees mentioned. AndyZ 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It still seems too short for what should be a pretty major section. Are there any archaeological sites in the area? Did the Tequesta interact with any other peoples? Tuf-Kat 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I expanded it; I haven't looked at archaeological sites yet but the Tequesta "sacrificed a child in 1743 to seal a friendship with the Tequesta's former enemies, the "St Lucies"", and I added stuff about their diet. AndyZ 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks quite a bit better, though you may want to specifically cite the source for the child sacrifice bit. Tuf-Kat 01:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Should I cite another Wikipedia article? AndyZ 01:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have add the citation for the source. AndyZ 21:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Needs a couple paragraphs under "Early settlement"~~
  - Do you mean a couple of paragraphs to lead into the section- like a brief overview? Wouldn't that be kind of redundant, since it would be covered by the rest of the section? AndyZ 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, because it's just an introduction. All its supposed to do is introduce the reader to the most basic ideas (i.e. approximately when Miami was founded, how it grew, how it changed, and what it has become now. Tuf-Kat 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I merged the N.A. part directly as the first paragraph, and provided a brief introduction. Can you please look at it again? AndyZ 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem, looks much better. Tuf-Kat 22:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NPOV concern: I know "settlement" is a pretty common term to use here, but if the Native Americans lived in villages, presumably permanent (since they're made of logs), then weren't they the earliest settlement? Why not move the "Native American" section under early settlement? And what, exactly, is the different between "European settlement" and "white settlement"?
Fixed --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of time now, but I can see a lot of need for copyediting. Why is Richard Fitzpatrick notable? "war zone" seems like an anachronism in context. Did a "terrible" winter really "strike" on "December 29, 1894"? That's a runon sentence too. The content looks generally pretty good, but it needs some work. Tuf-Kat 23:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that I can't find much information of the native americans of the area so I can't do much there, I will try to fix your other concerns though. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the infomation about the origin Miami --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some of the objections, others I don't really no how to fix it. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed "war zone", fixed run-on with the winter. Richard Fitzpatrick was the "first and most successful of the permanent white settlers". AndyZ 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll take another look in a little while, but please don't strike others' comments. Tuf-Kat 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry about that; some users have striked my comments and I've seen other users do that to other users' comments, so I thought that it was actually a common practice on Wikipedia. I'll work on copyediting the page more. AndyZ 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem, last I heard striking the comments of others was bad form, but who knows... Anyway, I would support but I really think the Native Americans section needs to be expanded. Tuf-Kat 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        kay, looks better now. Tuf-Kat 22:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff content on Alex Penelas is added or even linked to. Neutrality^talk 05:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, added a sentence on him with the Elian Gonzalez contervesity --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose 2b Comprehensiveness: no historiography section. Fifelfoo 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not need a historiography section, almost all articles don't have one and it's not even proposed. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am maintaining my strong opposition, see Local history for the disciplinary context of histories of cities of 300,000 people. There will be a seminal scholarly text, and I am astounded that the proponent of a "History of X" article would not have investigated the scholarly context of the history of the subject. Fifelfoo 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That rule came out of nowhere though, almost all FA don't have one and it's not needed for a FA --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. If we are going to throw a standard in, ALL FAs must be reworked. Let's be logical about this. Deckiller 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off, a strong oppose seems a bit too strong for just a single small issue about historiography, since everything else seems to be quite well explained. However, after looking through: History of Alaska · History of Arizona · History of the Australian Capital Territory · History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 · History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899 · History of Central Asia · History of Greenland · History of Limerick · History of New Jersey· History of Poland (1945–1989) · History of post-Soviet Russia · History of the Netherlands · History of Russia · History of Scotland · History of the Grand Canyon area · History of the Yosemite area, some of which have sources in the article but no historiography. Besides, historiography seems to be slightly a stretch off and a digression from the topic: as you put it yourself, an investigaion of "the scholarly context of the history of the subject" is an investigation not directly of the history of the subject. Such a topic perhaps could be discussed on a subpage, but other than that I see no reason to have to include a historiography section. If you would like, bring this issue up on the talk page and we can look through all of the replies. However, like the users above, I do not feel as if a historiography section is required (please also, we don't have to yell at each other over this). AndyZ 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a debate going on at the Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article#Additional requirement for articles dealing with a historical subject to be featured page, which seems to be going in favor of having no histiography pages. Deckiller 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak object~~, mostly on the merits of images. For example, the image of the Freedom Tower has a bad case of compression artifacts, and the image of Hurricane Andrew should be replaced with an image of the damage that the hurricane caused, not a radar image of the hurricane itself. Outside of that, great article. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed one of the images, but I don't think thats a concern unless it is a copyright issue. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no, the compression artifacts are very unappealing from the other picture. I never mentioned any copyright concerns, it just looks quite ugly. Featured articles should showcase the best of Wikipedia's content, and I'm pretty sure a replacement can be obtained easily. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see what you are trying to point out here; however, since images are not a prerequisite for featured article status the point is not a valid point for objecting. I will try to find a better image (unless someone else does it first). Thanks, AndyZ 01:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the image, not just because of this objection, but because of the reasons shown in the history of the article. AndyZ 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would have liked it if the image had been replaced, rather than removed, but you can't win them all, I guess. :). Changing to Support. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I would've wanted the image to be replaced and would be willing to return the image to the article if a better one could be found :). However, I was unable to find any Freedom Tower images that fell under any of the copyright tags (perhaps besides Fair use). Thanks, AndyZ 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Isn't it easier for someone just to go and take a picture of it, and then release it under the GFDL? (I assume there must be at least a few Wikipedians in Miami...) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably true, considering the list at Category:Wikipedians in Florida, does anybody know if any users live in Miami? AndyZ 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I live in Miami Beach but I'm having problems uploading images from my diginal camera --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]