Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina/archive1

History of South Carolina

Very comprehensive, more so than half the existing state history articles combined, and covering major American historical event significant to South Carolina from the first Native Americans to the Charles Town Landing to the Civil War. 26 hours over 3 days were spent writing the article, and I'm the only contributor, so pushing it to 1.0 has been an uphill battle, but I think it's there. Toothpaste 03:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Did nothing happen in South Carolina after February 21, 1865? --Carnildo 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. As per above. There is no information concerning South Carolina during Reconstruction (I am curious as to how the Union forces dealt with the state, since it was the first to secede), the late 1800s, and the 1900s. You could also mention the social and economic changes happening in South Carolina today, especially since the state is attracting many companies due to its low cost environment, notably for industrial types (e.g. foreign car companies such as BMW). Pentawing 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(They were especially vicious to it, of course, and SC suffered more from Sherman's March than Georgia did.) Misnamed article at this point, as this is really half the story. It's great work, but it is only half the story. (I.e. I'd object, but my objection has already been lodged.) Geogre 18:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content seems to be there. The only problems now are wording (e.g. grammar) and links for the periods after the Civil War. Pentawing 06:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikified all the links after the Civil War section. Could you please point out problems in my wording? Toothpaste 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting, ~~but there are a lot of sentences that could be broken down into smaller sentences.~~ Though the article has drastically improved since I first saw it, I would suggest that it be referred to peer review. Pentawing 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Too long for a history of 200 years (38kb!). Better shorten the existing passage and add the things after the war. Deryck C. 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, only because we need to cover the last 140 years. This is a good start, though. Don't worry about the length; you can break off detail into subarticles if you need to. Everyking 10:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added information all the way up to 1998, and later today I'm going to wikify the text. Aside from the above, is there anything else that could be added? Toothpaste 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it looks good to me. Could do with a few more illustrations? Phoenix2 02:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I added two more. Toothpaste 03:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Image:Sumter.jpg and Image:Hodges.jpg have no copyright information. --Carnildo 05:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You only get to object once. Add your new objections to the old one if you want, but you can't vote twice. Everyking 06:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - FAC isn't a vote. I'm objecting on two separate grounds, so I'm doing so in two separate places. --Carnildo 07:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a vote. The number of objections matter. One might not be enough to kill a nomination, but two might do it. I had a FAC where I remember at least 1, and I think 2 objects, but those weren't enough to kill it because the supports outweighed it. Everyking 07:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've replaced the pictures that had no notice, anyway. Toothpaste 12:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mild object - Lack inline citations, overwhelming TOC, inadequately short lead section, longer than necessary overall (see Wikipedia:Page size), and disproportionate coverage (too much on the Revolutionary and Civil wars while not enough on 20th century history). Spinning off of the more detailed sections and leaving summaries in their place per Wikipedia:Summary style would help a great deal. --mav 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized the sections on the Colonial Period and the American Revolution, then gave them a separate article. Better? Toothpaste 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better. Some other points above are still valid. --mav 17:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Needs to mention the title of the article in the first sentence, and needs to include at least a little bit of pre-history in the lead. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Toothpaste 17:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A thorough, detailed and well-laided out article, I think it's now up to featured status -- Joolz 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. A history of South Carolina which doesn't even mention the Jackson-era nullification crisis cannot be said to be comprehensive. And it wouldn't surprise me if there were other significant events between the adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the Civil War. Probably involving that Calhoun guy. Monicasdude 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Monicasdude -- I went to this article just a few days ago looking for a little info on the nullification crisis, and felt shocked that it was not at all available. I also agree that a failure to provide much on Senator Calhoun (an admittedly controversial, but also a mercurial and dynamic politician) is definitely something I'd expect addressed before FA status was granted. It's a solid article in many respects, but not yet featurable. Object. Jwrosenzweig 05:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lack of any discussion of the Indian Removal Act and its impact on S.C. is also glaring -- I know 1787-1850 isn't the most exciting period in American history, but I think a treatment of some of this is really necessary. Jwrosenzweig 05:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm writing the section(s) on 1787 to 1850 on my userpage, and it will probably be given a subarticle. I've addressed a lot of the complaints about the article very quickly, usually within a day, but I think right now it would be best just to submit this again later after doing more work. Toothpaste 09:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Object- lead section is too long (yes, I know that you expanded it after someone said it was too short, but see Wikipedia:Lead section). Otherwise a well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the lead. Better, or worse? Toothpaste 20:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]