Talk:United States/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks somewhat like a drive by nomination, as I can't see much preparation of the article by the nominator. Anyway, I'll do this review. Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, a pretty ambitious nomination, that is the article of one of the world's largest countries. Currently receiving around 31900 views per day, and an enormous reflist with over 500 references, plus a bibliography and some "website sources". It certainly looks well-sourced, and has had many, many different contributors expanding it over the years, but with no preparation recently for GA and long list of article milestones including some failed GA nominations. However, the latest of these was in 2012, so even with the drive-by appearance of this nomination, I am willing to conduct a full review.
My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. As it is such a long article, this may take a few days. Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 20:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments[edit]

My initial reaction is about the large swathes of red and pink on Checklinks for this page. All of these references need fixing or replacing before this nomination will pass. This probably won't be too hard as United States is a pretty well-covered topic. Apart from that, the article looks alright as far as general shape goes; there's plenty of images and charts/graphs, and each section manages to provide an overview instead of being too detailed and links to the dedicated article for the subtopic. I'm also happy to report that there are no links that need disambiguating, although there are many redirect links (some unprintworthy).

The size of the article is a problem at 294,379 bytes it's in the worst category for size...in fact its the 97th biggest article we have and the example used as what an article should not look like when it comes to size. It would also be a good idea not to have all the pictures different forced sizes - "upright" should be used over various sizes all over. -- Moxy (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just such an awfully big topic. All I can suggest is trimming down unnecessary words. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 18:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section analysis[edit]

After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing {{done}} after the item.

Lead[edit]

Infobox
  • The motto may not need so many references, and is incorrectly capitalized - only "In God" should be capitalized.
 Done--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map of all the U.S.'s territories stands out a little bit. Can you change to a vector one that doesn't have a white background and so fits in better?
Yes I can, using File:OCDE World Map.svg. Will this do? If so I will have it in a bit.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Replaced with File:US insular areas SVG.svg.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The population field - should this be cited to the current source ([1]), which changes all the time, or to the last reliable source, the 2010 census? Also, an out of date figure is given from that same source at the start of the demographics section of the article.
 Question: Well, I am not involved in this article, but I came upon this by chance. I feel sticking to a constant value is better. 2010 is not that old, you see. Moreover, the 2014 estimate, as mentioned is not accurate: it's accessdate is December 26th, 5 days before the New Year. According to the statistics, the States had a population of 320,087,963 on December 31st. EthicallyYours! 11:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The estimate is fine, imho, but I would certainly think that the official figure from the decennial Census should be there as well, as the only truly reliable source. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Can the first sentence be made a little more coherent and less disjointed? Do so many alternative names need pointing out? Can "(US or U.S.)" be changed to just "(U.S.)" as "US" is not the American English spelling (per the MOS)
I helped author that first sentence. Some of it has a distinct consensus that cannot change without discussion but I don't think the abbreviations are one of those but I will check. MOS:NOTUSA is the section of the guideline in question.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement of "world's third- or fourth-largest country by total area" looks a bit confusing and makes no attempt to clarify why it could be third or fourth. The linked article suggests fourth, so I would stick to that.
 Done Changed to "world's fourth largest country by area".--Chamith (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emerged from 13 British colonies" - Is "emerged" a technical term? Is there a better, more politically correct word that could replace it?
  • "Disputes between Great Britain and these colonies" - the wording here seems a bit clunky. "These" colonies should be aforementioned in the same sentence, right? What's up with simply "the colonies"?
 Done ".....these colonies"-->"....the colonies".--Chamith (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "home to a wide variety of wildlife" is unsourced and neither is it mentioned later in the article. Add a source.
 Done-Chamith (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Native American and European contact
  • The sentence "At the same time however many natives and settlers came to depend on each other." should have a comma in it somewhere, I think. Near "however".
 Done I think it should be like this- "At the same time, however, many native..."--Chamith (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you check whether squash, as in "corn, beans and squash in the frontier" should be a singular while collective (and not "squashes")
Checked I did a google search and it should be singular. For example this article used the same sentence.--Chamith (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Settlements
  • A timeframe could be inserted into "but other industries developed" to indicate how long this development took - say 5 years
 Done
  • "Cash crop" looks a bit weird to those who are unfamiliar with its definition - please link to cash crop.
 Done
  • "The Christian revivalist movement [...] fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty" - unsourced
 Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Independence and expansion
 Done by someone else. It's already 300px--Chamith (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "July 4, 1776" - Should there be a comma before the year?
 Done No, removed it--Chamith (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Civil War and Reconstruction Era
  • Credit Thure de Thulstrup in the painting of the Battle of Gettysburg
 Done--Chamith (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Industrialization
  • More references needed for statements
 Done.--Chamith (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary history
Recently several editors spent some care in reducing the History section. Some historians mark current events beginning at fifty years ago. Many contemporary events are covered later in the article, Should they be restated in the history section? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TheVirginiaHistorian: I wasn't aware of this recent reduction. If that is the consensus then it is OK to leave. Rcsprinter123 (confess) @ 12:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography, climate, and environment[edit]

  • More references needed for the entire section, particularly the paragraph beginning "The coastal plain of the Atlantic"
 Done--Chamith (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much of the Western mountains are alpine." - This sentence suggests that the mountains are in the Alps, which are in Europe. Either specify that is is an Alpine climate, or use another term for that climate.
 Done--Chamith (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Midwest's Tornado Alley" - sounds like an actual thing, whereas it is a colloquial term. Perhaps insert a "so-called" or some such phrase.
 Done--Chamith (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The U.S. ecology is considered "megadiverse"" - by whom? I would change the word from "considered" to avoid having to say who considers it to be megadiverse and messing up the sentence.
 Done Removed the word "Considered"-Chamith (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

  • Ref 171 (this one) has been wrongly quoted. There were 37 ancestries with 1,000,000+ members, not 31.
 Fixed--Chamith (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figures for the ethnic group numbers are wrong - should be 37 million Irish, 28 million English. Where has 31 million Mexicans come from; this is unsourced.
 Done Fixed ethnic group numbers, added a source for no. of Mexican immigrants.--Chamith (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "China, India, and the Philippines have been in the top four sending countries every year" - since when. Also, isn't this original research?
 Done Since 1990s, added reference, don't think this is original research. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's probably a better source to be found for the 3.5% gay, bisexual or transgender people. ABC News only mentions that figure once and could be inaccurate. Also, 2011 is out of date.
 Done--Added a new source, there was a slight difference, changed data according to the new ref.--Chamith (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Government and politics[edit]

Government finance
  • Does it really need 9 references in the "U.S. taxation is generally progressive"-beginning sentence, and all lumped together like that?
 Fixed- Compressed refs to a single cite note.--Chamith (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military[edit]

  • "The president holds the title of" - should President be capitalized?
 Done and fixed other similar issues along with that.--Chamith (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and law enforcement[edit]

  • The title of this section indicates "enforcement of crime and law", which obviously is not correct as crime is not promoted. To avoid this potential confusion, I recommend "Law enforcement and crime"
 Done. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't include the word "jurisprudence", because not all that many people know that word.
 Done Changed into "a legal system" which is actually the meaning of that word.--Chamith (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economy[edit]

 Done Increased up to 315px--Chamith (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Forced image size up to 275px--Chamith (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure[edit]

  • Are there no more subsections that could be included under "Infrastructure" than transportation and energy? I suggest bridges, canals, levees, architecture, civil engineering, construction. Many more ideas can be found at Template:Public infrastructure topics. A mention of each item only needs to be brief.
Transportation
  • A source needs to be found for "13 million roads"
 Fixed I was unable to find any reference to that statement except for sources which took in from wikipedia. The number of roads is a nonsensical statement either way as such I have replaced in with a referenced statement about the number of miles of public roads which I believe fulfills the same purpose. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources needed for "The civil airline industry [...], most major airports are publicly owned."
 Done--Chamith (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Energy

Source need for "29,000 terawatt hours per year"

 Done--Chamith (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

  • No mention of school districts, as well as "state and local governments"?
  • I think "competitive [.] institutions of higher education" is an opinion, because there isn't a source to say that they are competitive. Is this OR?

Health[edit]

  • No images included in this section - what about a hospital, a graph, a healthcare form?
I am not sure an image is really needed in this section. There are too many hospitals to choose from unless I was going to pick randomly. The healthcare form seems a bit random. Maybe a graph, but a graph of what? Mortality rate in America? Obesity rate? There are so many different options to choose from in this case. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:OnBeyondZebrax added a graph of different nations healthcare costs compared with the United States, but it was reverted. I think that graph might be worth putting back in. What do other editors think? Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a fair graph to put in. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture[edit]

Mass media
  • The paragraph beginning "In 1998" is completely unsourced.
 Done --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cinema
  • I think this subsection could be expanded somewhat, seeing as how the US contains Hollywood, a great center for entertainment
Music
  • Music also needs expansion. There's lots more to mention!
@Rcsprinter123: I will try to expand them. But this article's size is a huge problem. Like User:Moxy said its the 97th biggest article (I think so). If those sections were to be expanded I don't think I can prevent it from getting bigger.--Chamith (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ChamithN: Only a small expansion is required, and I don't suppose it's too essential. What really needs fixing are the references ↓↓. Rcsprinter123 (consult) @ 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rcsprinter123 since there is a main article on the subject. A quick summary is all that is needed, and what we have is really close to that. References should instead be the primary concern. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Food
  • More citations needed for some sentences
 Done Several citations added. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apple pie is a food synonymous with American culture." (image caption) - is this definitely true? I would associate the US with hamburgers more than apple pie, although that is a terrible stereotype. Anyway, that wording needs a change.
  • I changed it to "Apple pie is a food commonly associated with American culture." What's the consensus on this phrasing? Mr. Guye (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Changed wording again, changing 'culture' to 'cuisine'. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No other issues

References[edit]

The number of each reference I give is correct as of revision 642489139; if any have been added since then it will have moved numbers.

If there is no comment on a reference assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.

  • Refs 30, 40, 87, 118, 146 (iwin.iwd.state.ia.us), 160, 173, 208, 218, 297, 311, 413, 414, 426, 480, and 497 are dead
Not previously involved, but these references seem fixed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have stricken the ones (numbers from the linked revision) that are fixed, two lines above. Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 20:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed and replaced references where necessary. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have checked all the non striked references and fixed them when necessary. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 14, 15, 232, 360, 361, 362, 363, 460 and 506 have bare URLs
 Done I think I got them all...-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 6, 39, 195 and 203 don't directly support any claims or figures - need more specific links
  • Ref 17 does not mention the phrase "federal republic" anywhere in its United States section (does not support the claim)
It does. See page 632 (in the reference). It is used in the first sentence under the header "American Government." PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a URL to the book in google books. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's on page 670. I have updated the article. This item can be considered dealt with. Rcsprinter123 (interview) @ 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27 - A better source needs finding that doesn't require download of a spreadsheet
 Done replaced with LoC reference. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50 - I can't see where in this source document it says that the native population declined due in part to intermarriage
Removed the reference and the fact because it is not well supported by other reliable sources. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any valid source for this information either. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 131 - Doesn't support claim that millions moved from farm to city
Replaced the source. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 156 does not seem to support that Hawaii has an area of 10,931 sq m
I replaced the reference with information from the 2010 U.S. Census. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 177 is outdated - the 28.8% govt land area ownership in 2004 may have changed by now, as well as the 2.4% for military
Updated the totals and sources. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 178 and 179 seem irrelevant to the statement they are supposed to be supporting
Replaced those two references with a relevant reference. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 195 doesn't support 13 per 1,000, 35% below world average, or population growth rate 0.9%.
Updated. Fixed some wrong information. Added 2 references.--Chamith (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references that link to [2], [3], [4] are dead.
Fixed them all.--Chamith (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can put a strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful.

  • This review is  On hold until all the above suggestions are addressed. I will then assess the article against the GA criteria. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 22:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I am very impressed by the thoroughness of the review for citations. Great work. --108.30.130.111 (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

That's my review against the criteria. When the problems with the references (above section) are fixed, then criterions 2a and 2b will be satisfied and I will list as a Good Article. Rcsprinter123 (intone) @ 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this nomination has passed. Listing... Rcsprinter123 (interface) @ 16:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking part in such an extensive review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job guys!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/GA2&oldid=643813973"