Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Indiana/archive1

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:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [1].

History of Indiana[edit]

Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because...

Mingusboodle and myself have been working on it for several weeks and I believe it is ready now. Charles Edward 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A few of the references are pretty bare. Is it possible to include author and/or publisher on the internet sources? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've went through all the references and included publishers, authors, and titles as they are available on the pages referenced. Many links are to IN.gov where no author information is provided, all info there is the work of the Indiana Historical Bureau and I have listed it as the author. Charles Edward 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing quite a few refs with just the title and "Retrieved on...". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks my changes were lost in an edit conflict.. I will make the changes again. Charles Edward 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've fixed the refs again, and this time it saved. :) Please note that many of the refs point to IN.gov and the author is the Indiana Historical Bureau or another state agency. Also note that the refs who's publisher is stated as the Indian Center for History are on a site hosted by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, which is separate from the Indiana Historical Society, which other refs point too. Many have no "author" listed on the pages but are just general informational type pages. (if there is something more that can be done to these refs to improve them please let me know) Charles Edward 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks very good, but I would recommend someone go through and check for grammatical errors. I found four such issues in the lead alone. Small, nitpicky things though. Definitely is a high quality article. Resolute 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Websites still need publisher and last access date information on the references. I'm seeing quite a number of them missing publisher and/or last access date. When that's taken care of, I'll be glad to come back and double check the reliablitliy of sources and links.Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think it's on it's way, but I have a few concerns. Pronoun usage is a major issue. Please check all pronouns (he, she, it, they, their...)
  • The region was largely deserted until the Ohio River Valley became thickly settled by the Mississippian culture from about 1100 AD - 1450 AD. - how do we know it was "largely deserted". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I've changed the wording, hopefully that will address this concern. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their settlements where known for their ceremonial burial mounds, many of which are still visible. - wrong use of where (should be were), and the pronoun their has no antecedent.
"Their" points to "the Mississippians". I've addressed that also. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For unknown reasons they disappeared in the mid fifteenth century, about two hundred years before the Europeans first reached the region. again, no antecedent for they, and it isn't clear why this should be compared to the arrival of Europeans.
I would argue for leaving that. Point 1- European movement into the region is the next section and this provides context for that 2. This makes is clear that the disapeared for "unknown reasons" is unknown because no Europeans where there to document it. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire "Early civilizations" section seems very under-developed. Presumably, the data that exists comes from archaeological digs, which typically bring up pieces of pottery and other elements of daily life that can be expounded upon here.
To my knowledge, praticly nothing of much significance is known about the Mississippians or the Hopewells other than a few things about their settlements.(you can find this if you look at their wikipedia articles) Which would be another good point for leaving in the line about no contact with Europeans as an explanation to this lack of evidence. However I would like to expand that section where more information on it available. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indiana held a very important post during the colonial period. - this sentence could be removed entirely, with only a few tweaks to the rest of that section to make it flow better.
I've removed that sentence. The next two sentences do seem to provide ample context. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No permanent settlements were established in Indiana during most of the colonial rule, but control of the territory - although inhabited by Native Americans - was contested at various points by the European colonial powers - during most of the colonial rule is improper grammar. It also seems unlikely to me that Native Americans did not establish a single permanent settlement between 1673 and 1783 - if a source says that, please make it explicit which source it is.
The natives did have settlemts, at least 20 or so that i have read of. But these were not "permanent" as the natives were nomadic and moved between different parts of the state. The sentance is meant to refer to European settlements anyway. That is clarified and the sentence rewrote. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • came to the area eventually known as Indiana in 1679, claiming it for the King Louis the XIV of France. The area was further explored - repetition of the area
reworrded the sentance, sounds better now i think Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • from migrating too close to British influence - "migrate" in this sense requires an indirect object (e.g. it should be from migrating to a position perceived as too close to British influence, but that's a bad wording too - change the whole sentence instead)
changed to "moving to close the British sphere of influence". Might still need work Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other forts and outposts where established - wrong use of where, should be were
fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These forts where manned - wrong use of where, should be were
fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the Jesuits conducted missionary works in the area they inhabited in an attempt to convert the local natives to Christianity - needlessly wordy
revised sentence Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the missionaries even went to far as to live among the natives and accompany them on their hunts and migrations. They would perform infant baptisms and preach regularly to the tribes. - vague pronouns - remember, pronouns should refer to the closest previous noun or pronoun that agrees in number and gender
revised sentences Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • he first war to affect the region was the King William's War in 1689 which saw some minor raiding by the native tribes - not to be pedantic, but it's highly unlikely that there was never a war in Indiana before 1689. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, it isn't clear what King William's War is, or why there was raiding.
I am not clear how to change this sentence without going into a sizable addition. While there may have been wars in the region before there are none recorded, so I see no need to speculate. To say why there was only raiding would require a broader explanation of the entire war which was european in nature. And as previously stated the natives where allied to the french and there were no european establishments, so there has been established for which to attack within the state, so the raiding is external and not really relevant to the article other than the fact that natives left the state to raid. I made a small change, hopefully that is enough Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second, Queen Anne's War from 1740 to 1748. not a complete sentence
noticed that earlier but forgot to fix. fixed now Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • French convinced many of its Native American tribes - vague pronoun
changed to "convinced many of the regions native american tribes" Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • French control of Canada which would lead to its fall to Britain - vague pronoun
changed "its" to "Canada's". Not sure if that is proper either though Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Seven Years War (known as the French and Indian War in the Americas) the British challenged - this is an article about the Americas, right? Shouldn't we be using that term?
But at this point in the article the state is being discussed in the context of being a european possesion. I have no problem to change that, but a second opinion would be useful. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if that's the standard for historical articles I don't really care either. But wasn't all of North America a European possession at the time? Tuf-Kat (talk)
  • the Native Americans largely support the French - wrong tense
changed to supported Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the beginning the tribes sent large bands of warriors to support the French in resisting the British advance and counter-raiding - this is a recurrent problem in this article - you can't say something like "the British advance and counter-raiding" unless you're confident the reader knows what advance and counter-raiding you're referring to. It would be more proper to change it to "an advance and subsequent counter-raiding by the British" (see Article (grammar) on definite and indefinite articles; only use a definite article if it is clear which member of a set is being referred to). Furthermore, "counter-raiding" can't really be used if it isn't explained what they were countering - the implication is that the Native Americans raided the Brits, and the Brits counter-raided the French, but I'm not sure if that's what's meant.
I have reworded this to sound better. But again, this war has it's own article and would be very lengthy to go into detail as to why they did everything they did. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • westward but eventually where able to overcome the native resistance, after the fall of Montreal and where no longer able to support the hinterland - another major recurrent problem. Please look at every instance of where to see if it should be were.
fixed Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Britain began her influence on Indiana in 1760 - earlier France was referred to as "it" (the French convinced many of its Native American tribes - though now that I look more closely, that's mixed up with another pronoun misuse), whereas GB is referred to as "her" here. I think either one is considered acceptable (I prefer "it") but be consistent.
In that instance was changed to "the region's". Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are only the issues I found on a casual glance up to the very beginning of the "Great Britain" section. This needs a thorough copyedit to be read for FAC. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These tribes where significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes where nomadic, returned to the use of stone tools - there are still these two misused wheres. Also, the second sentence is improperly constructed (the comma after "nomadic" introduces a list, each item of which is grammatically optional: "The new tribes were returned to the use of..." is not sensical). I still think this needs a thorough copyedit. There remain improper usage of definite articles (The control of the territory was contested at several times by the European colonial powers., the British challenged the French control in the region yet again), and generally sloppy writing (there was no official attempted to form permanent settlements, Gabriel Marest was one such priest, teaching among in Kaskaskia as early as 1712.). I don't see any additional vague pronouns, but I don't have time to look too thoroughly (and I haven't actually checked that my specific concerns listed above have been satisfied - I think so, but don't quote me on that yet - the relevant sections do seem much improved). Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've went through the article completely and did a major copy edit. The sections seem to flow together much better to me now. I've also removed alot of the pronoun usage replacing them with nouns and proper nouns wherever it seemed appropriate. I've also reordered some of the paragraphs and sentences to best convey the thoughts in a coherent way. And i've tried to clarify as many vague points as possible, even removing some minor content. If you should have a chance please check through the article again and let me know if it is at all improved in your opinion. Thanks Charles Edward 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Let me first say that I am no expert on wiki rules, so please correct if my assumptions are incorrect. i am only interested in writing a good clean article. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/index.html this site. it gives its sources, but they are all tertiary sources, it looks like. Facts on File and Encyclopedia Britanica. Also, they are older sources, perhaps something more recent?
    • I've replaced this with a ref to a newer book i found.
  • What makes http://www.mississippian-artifacts.com/ a reliable source?
    • this website has a NSTA award and the author is professor at Kansas state University. Does that not count? Plus it has some good pictures and alot of content. I've went ahead and replaced it with another ref I found. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 31 "The Indian Historian - Indiana Territory" is lacking a publisher
    • fixed
  • This statement "These nations would be participants in the Sixty Years' War, a struggle between Native Nations and White Nations for control of the Great Lakes region. These tribes were significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes were nomadic and returned to the use of stone tools and did not follow the large scale construction and agrarian ways of their predecessors." is sourced to a book published in 1892. Scholarship has advanced quite a bit since then, surely we have something more recent about the Mississippians?
    • I found a newer another book saying the same thing. (but it the older book seems to be more informative to me)
  • There are sources listed in the notes in a short form that aren't in the references section.
    • Current ref 28 Judge Law The colonial history of Vincenens which is lacking all bibligraphic information past that.
      • expanded
    • Current ref 32 Matilda Gresham Life of Walter Quintin Gresham
      • expanded
    • current ref 44 "By Julia Henderson Levering Historic Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that.
      • expanded
Still missing publisher. ALL book references need at the least: Title, publisher, and page number. Author, year of publication etc. should be given also, but there are rare cases where sometimes that's not always available. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 47 Dewitt C. An Illustrated History of the State of Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that. Later it is used as current ref 55 with fuller information, I think. There though, it's lacking a page number.
      • fixed - pausing here, seems someone has screwed up the reflist template...
Second usage is still lacking page numbers. They are needed for WP:V Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 62 Miller Harold Economic Geography is lacking all bibliographic information
      • expanded
  • You reuse William M. Fowler Empires at War quite a lot, perhaps move it to the References section and do the footnotes in short form? Also, ISBN seems to be incorrect, is it this book: Google Books link
    • done
  • Current ref 14 is to the Encyclopedia Americana, but that's an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it is a bit odd for an encyclopedia to be using another encyclopedia for references. Also it's lacking a publisher and publication date and other bibligraphical data.
    • I'm not clear, do you suggest replacing it with a better reference or expanding the info on the existing one?
Id suggest replacing it, but if you are adamant that it must stay in, it needs the other information. Really suggest replacing it though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • i've replaced it with a ref to barnhart which gives the same information on the topic. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 29 Dowd, Gregory Evans A spirited resistance is lacking publisher and any other bibliographic information and page number
fixed
  • current ref 30 Arville L. Funk A Sketchbook of Indiana History is lacking an ISBN and page number, and you use this reference again, so shouldn't it go in the references section? Also several of its later uses lack page numbers.
    • my copy of the book does not have an ISBN number, and I cant locate one online either. It was published in 1963, did they do that then? Pages numbers are added, and it is converted to short reference. =But, fyi, i used two books by thus same author, I don't want to cause confusion so i left one as a long reference.
To do the one author with different books thing you can go two ways... you can differentiate them by Author (year of publication) or Author Title. I generally go Author Title but that's a personal preference. Just pick one and stick to the style, it's perfectly okay to have more than one work by an author and still use the short references system. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 35 Cleaves, Freeman Old Tippecanoe is lacking a page nubmer
    • fixed
  • You reuse William Wesley Woolen Biographicl and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana a number of times, probably should put it in the references section. Also, this book was originally published in 1883, perhaps you should mention that in the bibliography, that's it is a reprint of a 1883 edition.
    • done
  • Current ref 50 "Indiana Historiacl Bureau The State House story' is lacking a last access date
    • template was formated wrong, fixed
Still has no last access date. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • template was still formatted wrong... It is fixed now.
  • What makes http://www.potawatomi-tda.org/ a reliable source?
    • The site is maintained by a member of the Indiana Historical Society and the information containted in it is from their publications, and it's the best online reference I've come across. I have replace it anyway with a ref from Funk 45-47
  • Current ref 60 Emma Thornbrough Indian in the Civil War Era is lacking a page number
    • fixed
  • What makes http://historic.shcsc.k12.in.us/CivilWar/BATTLE.HTM a reliable source?
    • The site is hosted by the public school of Corydon, the city where the battle occured. The site is used as a public school teaching recourse.
Yes, but it doesn't give its sources nor is a public school going to be well known in the history field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You reuse Ralph D. Gray Indiana History A book of readings, perhaps it should go in the references section?
    • done
  • What makes http://www.bsu.edu/ourlandourlit/Regions/EC.html a reliable source? It says at the bottome "Our Land Our lIterature is an electonric exploration of Indiana's enviromental literature created by student scholars at the Virginia B. Ball Center for Creative Inquiry in Muncie Indiana."
    • it is published by student scholars at a reputable Indiana university.
Yes, but the key part here is "student scholars". For self published information, we want to satisfy WP:SPS which requires that the writers be noted in their field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the ref with two different ones that, combined, bear out the facts of paragraph. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 69 Milestones in Medical Research is lacking last access date.
Still missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • template formatting problem, fixed
  • Current ref 71 McMakin Dean Musical Instrumetn Manufacturing in Elkhart Indiana is lacking bibliographic data past that.
    • I am unable to locate this book or any additional information on it, perhaps someone else can? I will search for a ref to replace it.
    • I've found a another source to replace it with. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 72 is lacking last access date.
    • fixed
  • This statement "During the postwar era Indiana became a critical swing state that would often decide which party would control the Presidency. The parties each vied for Hoosier support and included a Hoosier on almost every presidential ticket in the three decades following the Civil War." is referenced to this site, which however only covers 1888. Need better sourcing for this statement.
    • added additional ref to gray, page 171-172 which covers the same topic.
  • Current ref 83 "Idnaian Center for History " is lacking a publisher
    • fixed
  • This is a marginal source http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=44dc224971c81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD, it would be nice to see it replaced with a better one.
    • i've supplied an additional ref to supplement it, but I do not find it as informative as the previous one so I have left it. The ref does site a biographical book as it's reference, however I do not have access to that book - would it be alright to add that book the reference instead?
If you don't have access to the book, you shouldn't cite the book. Only cite sources you've actually accessed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I found another source that confirms the info in the article published by the County History Preservation Society of Indiana. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 85 "Indiana History Chapter Nine" is lacking a publisher
    • fixed
  • Current ref 86 Jack Keenan "The Fight for survival ..." is lacking a last access date
    • fixed
  • This statement "The 1973 oil crisis created a recession that significantly hurt the automotive industry in Indiana. Companies such as Delco Electronics and Delphi began a long series of downsizing that contributed to high unemployment rates in manufacturing cities like Anderson, Muncie, and Kokomo. The trend would continue until the 1980s when the national and state economy began to recover. Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry." is sourced to this http://www.wsws.org/workers/1998/july1998/jiml-j02.shtml which is an interview with a retired autoworker. One interview with a retired autoworker isn't enough for the sweeping statements made in the article.
    • a ref has been added to the US labor department report about the rise and fall of auto industry in the midwest during the 1970s-1980s. Wording of the section may need changed slightly to more properly reflect the new reference, I will look that over.
    • I've went through and removed the part that is not supported by the new ref. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 27 just says "English" what is that?
    • fixed
  • Current ref 96 Corporate Tax History http://www.in.gov/dor/taxtypes/corp-history.html deadlinks for me.
    • The pages has been moved and replaced with a new page with far less content[2]. I don't think there is enough information there now to support the statement in the article, but I have went ahead and replaced the link. Another ref will need to be found or that statement should probably be removed.
    • i've been unable to locate another source to properly reference that statement, So i have removed the statement. It can be re-added when another source is found. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not wrong, but very odd formatting to see the last names of the authors of the notes given in short form be italicised.
    • that is due to using the cite book template for all the refs, I will correct that.
  • Please change all your references that give the author name in First last form to last name first, as that is the format you seem to use most
    • done
Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will be glad to work through this list this afternoon. Charles Edward 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments from Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current refs 57 and 59 are to Funk, Arville Hoosiers in the Civil War, but neither give their page numbers.
  • Current ref 87 Indiana History Chapter Nine is lacking a publisher
  • Do you actually use the "Indiana" the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia ref? If not, delete it.
    • it doesn't appear to be used, I have removed it.
I'm going to suggest you read up on the use of the name function in the <ref> tags. If you go something like <ref name=TAG>(bibliographical info)</ref> for the first usage of a web page or a page (or pages) from a book (with the same page numbers) then every other time you use that same site or set of book pages, you can just go <ref name=TAG/> which simplifies things greatly, AND combines all the refs that are the same together so that it's easier to read the refs.
I will look into that, I've seen it done on other articles. To be honest when I began working on this article I never expected to become so lengthy and didn't consider that I would end up with nearly one hundred references.
I also took the liberty of formatting a few easy ref changes, and alphabetizing your references.
Thank you!
Lastly, I don't see any explanation of the origin of the nickname "Hoosiers"?
I didn't add an explanation mainly because no one really knows where it came from. There are four or five very different theories but the only thing definite is became common sometime between 1820-1830, which is mentioned in the "Early development" section. And too add one theory I would have to add the others to be fair which would make what I consider an already very long article even longer.
Heh. COI, my family is one of the ones that is supposed to have orginated the term. Actually a way back great-uncle, but... family nevertheless. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Northern Indiana Historical Bureau has a good webpage that explains the different theories, so I could add that information to the article if you think it would be useful. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to run through the remaining items tomorrow. Thanks for your your thorough review of the article! Charles Edward 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • Image:Mississippian city.jpg - on what page is this image? The book doesn't have an "appendix" and I've been unable to locate the image after going through the book twice.
      • page number added, my copy is a revision with three appendixes on the end. Charles Edward
    • Image:Pontiac conspiracy.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
      • I cant find anythinf certain on this image, I think it came from a harpers weekly though. Should we remove it? Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Treaty of Greenville.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
    • Image:Grouseland.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
      • I think someone just took that pic an uploaded it. I have removed it though because of the space issue. Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The small resolution, lack of camera metadata and non-self license are big red flags; very unlikely to be a user-made image. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Wh9.gif - needs a verifiable source.
      • Source is added Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see that the image has changed? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added the info on the image at the commons. It is from [3], if not it is awfully coincidental that the images are the same size and name. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Tecumseh and Harrison.jpeg - needs a verifiable source.
    • Image:Indianaconstitutionelem.jpg - history center website does not assert a date for this image. What is the basis for the 1910 claim (note, also, the discrepancy with "after" 1920 in the caption)? Where is evidence that the image was published, not just created, in 1910 (only the former is the PD-US criterion). Additionally, source asserts copyright and states "Users may download material displayed on this site for noncommercial, educational purposes only". Non-commercial images are not acceptable per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo.
      • I am not certain I understand what you mean by "published". IHS has had the photo in it's public record for nearly 100 years, is that "published"? Anyway, I live two blocks from this tree.. I will just go take a new photo. :) Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Publication is "the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". For example, if I take a photograph of a tree in my front yard and put the photo in an album or hang it on my wall, it has not been published. If I go and put that photo on postcards, use it in a book, etc. (i.e. copies to be distributed), it is thusly published. So the question here is whether this, say, just sat in a trunk before the historical society scanned it or it was actually copied and distributed before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok I am removing the current image. I will replace it when I am able to take a new photo. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:80 Indiana Regiment.jpg - what edition of Harper's Weekly is this image from? Merely saying "Harper's Weekly" is not sufficient information.
      • It says its from the November 1, 1862, issue of Harper's Weekly and the author of the picture. What more do you suggest adding? Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It didn't say that when I reviewed it. You made the alteration. What is the basis for the assumption that the date provided is the issue of Harper's Weekly and not the photograph itself? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a photo that I uploaded. I listed the issue date as the date. The image can also be found online here [4]. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Indywarmem.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
      • The source says it is from www.indy.gov. Should we remove the image?
        • The image does not currently contain a source. On what specific indy.gov page is the image used? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like its from here [5]. The copyright info would be listed wrong though, IN.gov is state, not federal, and therefore not free. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image sandwiching issues in "Indiana Territory" section; see WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with the picture referencing criteria. Do these references to the source of images need to be shown on the article page or on the image page? Also, you have pointed to quite a few places you would like to have references added, this can be done but it is nessecary to reference every single statement in this article? Charles Edward
Image sources need only be provided on the image pages. You may be confusing me with Ealdgyth above, as I have not made reference to sourcing of statements. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will see what I can find out.. I've only added two of the images myself, the rest are from other articles. Charles Edward 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based primarily on prose, although there are some MOS issues and a few areas that need to be a bit better cited. For each of the main prose issues, I've given one example; the issues are not confined to just those examples, though.
    • Prose issues
      • Many long unwieldy sentences (example "the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s." could be rewritten as "Explorers claimed the area for France during the 1670s.")
I've tried to go through and cut all this out, but I am not great with prose. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • issues with clauses matching (example " These tribes succeeded one another in dominance until the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s" - the tribes were still dominant in the 1670s; they didn't suddenly stop being there when the explorers arrived"
      • Use of descriptor "Hoosiers" in the lead without explaining what that is (many people will not know that is the Indiana nickname)
I dont think the lead is the place the go into that, I just replaced it with "residents" of Indiana. Charles Edward
      • Pronoun antecedents don't always match: example "During the early 20th century the state developed into a strong manufacturing state, then experienced setbacks during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The state saw many developments during this time " - which time? the 1930s is the last time discussed, or does this mean the early 20th century?
clarified this point, are there others? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lead there is a reference to Eli Lilly. This goes to a disambig page - do you mean the company or the man?
fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of repetition across sentences that could be reduced. example "Evidence suggests that Indiana had a very low population following the Hopewell decline. The population remained low until " could be rewritten "Following the Hopewll decline, evidence suggests that Indiana's population was low until..."
I've tried to remove as much as this as I have noticed. Is there more? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen several grammatical errors - verbs don't agree with subjects, extra words in sentences, no apostrophes in words that need it. It needs a thorough read-through again.
I've went through the article about ten times looking for things. It's all starting to run together. Hopefully I have fixed some of the issues. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS issues
      • Per WP:MOSDASH, use ndash instead of a hyphen for date ranges (and it should be spaced for a date range)
i've replaced all the ones I saw in the article. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Capitalization errors: Cultures, Priests, etc probably shouldn't be capitalized. Check the article for other instances of wikilinks like these that ended up improperly capitalized.
fixed the ones I found Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of fewer that 4 lines should not be offset.
I assume you are refering to the consitution quote - I have removed that line. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also templates should be at the beginning of a section, not at the end, and I don't think that See also: History of Indianopolis really belongs here anyway - maybe in the See also section at bottom?
fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is Jefferson Academy bolded? That appears to be against WP:MOSBOLD.
I believe it was bolded because it was not wikilinked. That can be changed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see at least one instance where there is no conversion between standard and metric.
      • I don't believe that "War" is supposed to be capitalized when used by itself.
    • "but it is theorized that European plagues " - theorized by whom?
Theorized by the author of the book in reference that ends the paragraph. Should I duplicate the reference at every statement that is made using that reference, even within the same parapgraph? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The citation method you use is fine, but it is usually best when there is phrasing like "it is theorized" to make it explicitly clear in the sentence who is doing the theorizing. Sometimes the source is reporting that someone else theorizes that. I'd rephrase to say..."Historian/author/etc John Doe theorizes that ..." Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If La Salle didn't come to Indiana until 1679, how was there an outpost within the territory in 1673?
La Salle claimed the land for france, he was the first to map it and truely explore. Traders were in indiana before him dealing in furs. That could be made more clear. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of excess wikilinking and repetition in section France. It talks about each fort, when it was founded and by whom, and then has this sentence which repeats all the info " Of these forts the more important included Fort Vincennes (Present day Vincennes), Fort Ouiatenon (Present day Lafayette), and Fort Miamis (Present day Fort Wayne). "
that can be pared down Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my screen, there is a gap of several lines before the paragraph beginning "By the 1850s". This is likely because the image and table are bumping against each other; one of these should be moved.
    • Is there a source for "In the early 19th century, most transportation in Indiana was accomplished by river.
    • Is there a source for "The first road in the region was called Buffalo Trace"
    • Is there a source for fact that New Albany was the largest city?
    • Is there a source for "The first major road in the state was the National Road, "
    • Is there a source for "The value to the South of this secession was only a brief piece of propaganda."
    • Is there a source for "Prior to the Civil war, the population was generally in the south of the state where easy access to the Ohio River provided a convenient means to export products and agriculture to New Orleans to be sold"?
    • Is there a source for "This would lead to a population shift to the north where the state would come to rely more on the great lakes and the railroad for exports"?
    • Is there a source for "Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry."
I've added references to each of these statesments or a sentence or two after that should satisfy the claims. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the images are of Governors. It might be helpful to put the years of their terms in office in the captions.
There are no images of the governors of Indiana in the article. There is one of President Harrison who was a territorial governor, but he was more than just governor, wouldn't it take away from him to just put his dates as governor? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is the picture of Harrison and one of Gov. Morton. I think the captions should have a bit more context. In Harrison's case, it could say something like, "Harrison, the xxth U.S. President and the only one from Indiana, served as territorial governor from yyyy to zzzz". Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, I have done that. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this can be fixed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little concerned that the article relies a great deal on the Indiana Center for History, the Indiana state government, and various websites. I would imagine that there are many books dealing with the history of Indiana, and I wonder why those weren't used rather than the web sources. I'd rather see independent third-party sources.
75% of the article is sourced from books exclusively. I would have sourced this whole things books, but then how could anyone verify anything at all unless you have access to a libary. There is a question about an image i scanned from one book in a lower comment that is not available in a copy of the book they are looking at. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verification requires that good sources be used, not that internet sources be used. Many FAs, especially for historical events do not use a single web source, and that is okay. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how Indiana Historical Bureau stuff could be conisdered questionable and will work through to see what I can be replaced with better references. But in regards to the Indian Center for History, that is funded by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, and independent orginazation, I would think that those sources are acceptable. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The books listed in the reference section are using different formatting methods. Can these be made more consistent?
All the books where listed using the cite book template, they should all be formated the same. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't put a section around the templates. They should just be by themselves.
I am not sure what you mean by this. please advise. Thanks Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section called Other Information, and the only information in it is two templates.

The section header should be removed. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK fixed Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your review. To be honest almost every sentence could have a reference put after it but some if it is such basic knowledge is there really any value to referencing it? I have the books and go do that if you think it is needed, Most of these statements have wiki links which you could follow, as a reader, and get more information, including references on the topic. Please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect on anything :) Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not every fact requires a reference. The ones I pointed out are those that could potentially be disputed. It is generally not a good idea to depend on a child article to contain the references, as those articles are outside the control of this one. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 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_Indiana/archive1&oldid=1138462845"