From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Idaho is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Idaho (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (marked as Top-importance).
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

State amphibian/bird/etc[edit]

There is a box containing the info on state bird etc, which is normally closed. When I press 'show', the box appears but the column containing the map and photos doesn't move down, so the info is hidden. (I'm using Firefox 2 if that matters). (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


people in idaho are probly used to toorists because og the great land features there...lolz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) For gods sake learn to spell. Exactly what is your point? --Thunderbuster (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

state reptile?[edit]

Someone recently added Sceloporus woodi as the state reptile. This is dubious on a number of counts:

  • No source. (Though the other state emblems mostly also lack references.)
  • That reptile is found only in Florida. (According to the WP article as well as [1].) Now that doesn't 100% rule it out but it makes it doubtful.
  • It's not listed here.

So, anyone got a source for this? -- Why Not A Duck 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure what to do about the problem, but the alignment in the geography section is all wrong (on my monitor, at least. I don't know how common the problem is). Could someone possibly fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I worked on it some, I think it is better now, let me know what you think. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Idaho/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be taking this article for review, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria at this time. The main problem is the significant lack of referencing, but there are also many other issues. Here are some more specific thoughts:

  • The lack of referencing is the most pervasive issues. References are needed for statistics, opinions, and potentially controversial facts. Some specific areas that need additional references include the sections on Climate, Demographics, Economy, Counties and Politics.
  • The image layout needs work. There are huge amounts of white space and text sandwiched between images.
  • The bottom part of the article, from Important cities and towns down, turns into a series of lists. These should be turned into prose, wherever possible. For example, in the National Conservation Areas section, it would probably be best to remove all but the top five or so most important parks, and instead replace the list with a prose description of how many parks there are, how much land they cover, how many tourists per year use them, a general description of the recreation/conservation/etc activities that happen there, etc. This would give the reader much more information than a list of blue links. This is just one example, the other sections that are nothing more than a list of blue links also need work. The list of lakes further up in the article is another example of a place where it would be easy to turn an uninformative list of links into a paragraph or two of prose that would be much more useful to the reader.
  • Law and government section - This section is very choppy, with tiny subsections and a bunch of one and two sentence "paragraphs". The executive, legislative and judicial branch subsections could easily be merged into the state government section, which would make the prose flow better and would make it easier to remove duplicated information.
  • Ten dead links; some are tagged and some aren't. See here for details.
  • Other reference issues:
    • What makes #7 ( a reliable source?
    • What makes #19, 22 (American Forts Network) a reliable source?
    • What is #34 ("Zuivelzicht" April 25, 2007)?
    • References should at the very minimum have a title, publisher and, for web references, an access date.

Faustus, I see that you nominated several other articles at the same time as this one. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, it does not appear that you edited the articles, or at least the ones that I checked. It is generally better for editors who have worked on a particular article to be the ones to nominate it, and it also often works best for new GA nominators to nominate one article at a time, so that they can see how the process works, get tips, and then apply their new knowledge to their other articles. The other articles that you nominated that I looked at have many of the same problems with a lack of referencing and poor layout and formatting. I would suggest withdrawing them (or all but one that you are really interested in working on), and perhaps work with another experienced editor, or at a process such as WP:Peer review, until you really understand the GA criteria. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Theft of the state capitol?[edit]

There seems to be a claim that the move of the state capitol to Boise was theft. The line includes "including the illegal and chaotic transfer of the territorial capital from Lewiston in December 1864 to Boise in January 1865" which seems highly POV, as does the only source that is cited for this. This sounds really dubious. Are there any more sources that can cited for this, and could we reword this to be less problematic? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I had reason to check this recently, and you're right, it is very biased. The facts of what happened are: Idaho territory was established by law by the US Congress, a law that gave the governor the power to establish a capital until the territorial legislature chose a permanent location. The first governor (appointed by the President, like all territorial governors) chose Lewiston. Under the second governor, the legislature decided to move the capital to Boise. A Lewiston-area judge (a probate judge, apparently) declared the legislative session invalid and ordered the arrest of the second governor, who fled. What the guy who wrote that reference (and his supporters, if any) prefer to overlook is that even if we assume that judge had the power to declare the session invalid (and the session was eventually upheld by the Idaho Territory Supreme Court), that meant the legislature hadn't designated a capital, and so the governor (or the acting governor, as it worked out) once again had the power to put the capital wherever he wanted. Logically, the illegal thing was the Lewiston partisans trying to force the capital to stay there!
I shall be revising this claim momentarily. HistorianK (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links[edit]

The link, "List of Idaho senators and representatives" under the "Legislative Branch" subtitle of the "Law and government" subsection no longer works.Jksgvb (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)