Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Native Americans in the United States/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Native Americans in the United States[edit]

A common perception in popular media (perhaps valid) is that while Wikipedia is strong on technology and current affairs, it suffers in humanity. We need to showcase our work in humanities and I feel this comprehensive, well-written, more NPOV than I would have felt possible for such a topic, researched and extensively referenced article is a good candidate. Loom91 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. The caption to the first picture says it's an Assiniboin BOY. This certainly looks like a middle aged man to me. Also. All the links in the text are external jumps to the Internet. Can these be made to inline citations, such as the ref/note system? Rlevse 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • His name is "Assiniboin Boy". He's also not an Assiniboin, but an Atsina. --Khoikhoi 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, sorry I wasn't paying more attention. But it still needs inline citations. There are ways to do this, but I personally prefer the ref/note system. Also, two of the photos carry PD tags, which are obsolete. Other than that, I think it's a pretty good article.Rlevse 13:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed 3/4 of the PD images. AndyZ 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed inline citation (<ref></ref>) system). AndyZ 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No more PD problems. AndyZ 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • All images now fixed.AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Provisional Object If as Rlevse says, the references get specifically turned into inline citations to inform the reader exactly where the information comes from. It's a bit long (but then again, it's a weighty topic) but it might benefit for a slight trimming here and there... But i'll be happy to support if the ref|note systewm is used. Thethinredline 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are 18 of these external jumps. If someone really cared about the article, it'd take 10-15 minutes to fix. That's that's holding this up. Rlevse 16:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed inline citation (<ref></ref>) system). It actually took probably less than 5 minutes-it was fast. AndyZ 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. As AndyZ has so kindly fixed the citation and image copyright tag problem, do the objections still stand? Loom91 09:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is an inline citation system (but not the one I'd have used). The problem with the way this was done is that when you click on the footnote in the text and go the footnote section, all you see is a number--telling you nothing about the ref. See the FA Cheers for how they implemented this same system. If I get time today, I may work on it. Also, I saw a "19th of May" entry, which is not the wiki standard and is not the way the rest of the aricle uses dates, so I changed it to "May 19" for consistency. Two other things: * a)the first footnote doesn't appear until section 2.3 -- are there any refs available for the first 1/4th of the article? * b) This: For further information, see A Cry from the Earth: Music of North American Indians by John Bierhorst (ISBN 094127053X) should be in the Bibiography or Footnote section. Rlevse 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree here: while it in essence is not just a number but a link, it shows nothing about the reference itself. Retrieval dates (if possible) should be included, probably by looking through the history to find when they were incorporated. For the other information relating to inline citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
        • Just another note, it isn't a problem with the citation system- everything is edited to directly from the text, so that you will find <ref> tags throughout the edit page for the article. You can adjust the content from there. This means that while editing a section, you can also directly edit the references in that section. (I also prefer this system because it is very easy to add references directly w/o having to edit multiple times, and it is easy for conversion from imbedded external links). AndyZ 01:25, 8 February 2006

(UTC)

          • I fixed the footnote problem- there are now at least some 5 footnotes alone in section 1.1.AndyZ 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I wouldn't be too picky about citation style. It is well-referenced, and a good article Borisblue 06:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment we're not being picky about the refs, the way they are only reveals numbers to a reader. I know of no other FA that has this. Whether it's done with ref/note or ref/ref isn't important, it's the usability to the reader that's important. 11:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC) PS: The reason I don't like the ref/ref system is that the refs show in the text when you go to edit it, disrupting the reading, but I'll work with it here.Rlevse 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I've fixed the referencing and done some copyedit; I support now, but would like to see more refs in the beginning. Rlevse 13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Object - prose needs to be cleaned-up, especially in "The Bering Strait Land Bridge theory" section. Also, makes several self-references (see last section of lead), which isn't good. Finally, first in-line cite doesn't come until nearly midway through the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Does the article need inline citations before that? Loom91 08:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article should ideally have footnotes spread uniformly throughout the page whenever necessary; the lack of footnotes before then should be addressed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A couple of inline citations have been added to the early history section. I also added several {{citation needed}}s where other inline citations could/should be added. AndyZ 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are now over 30 inline citations, and the prose has been worked on. AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Can you reformat the bierhorst footnote as just "Bierhorst, p(p) ##"? Circeus 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. Not well-written. --Khoikhoi 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please, such vaugue objections are very difficult to address. Please raise specific pbjections that can be fixed instead of making categorical statements. Loom91 08:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I've changed my object to this comment. Well, for example, in the "current status" section, there's two POV paragraphs about Native Americans in Virginia. This article shouldn't get into specifics like this - it should be an overview. --Khoikhoi 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Browsing through the article, I think there are several other POV sections besides just those 2 paragraphs- I gain the feeling that in the European sections there is a POV tone to the paragraphs. AndyZ 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed the Virginia paragraphs.AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (Again) sorry for the late review. The article has a lot of information, that may be sufficient for summarizing such a broad topic, but the organization is poor and the focus uneven. There are numerous examples (and problems with the writing as well), but I'll present only one specific example which should indicate that a fairly extensive revision is required:
In the "Cultural aspects" section, the scope of coverage is almost wildly inconsistent from subsection to subsection. In "Society", three groups are mentioned, Iroquois, Navajo and Pueblo. Are these three groups representative of "Native Americans"? And the various descriptions of arts and crafts, tribal stories, and relationships with the spirit world is kind of random and hardly seems to describe "society", then or now. The next section, "Religion", entirely ignores the past and only says something about the "most widespread religion at the present time". "Gender roles" hardly says anything--"social and clan relationships were matrilinear and matriarchal" with no elaboration--and ends after all of two sentences with: "The cradle board was used by mothers to carry their baby whilst working or traveling"? "Music and art" is jumps about from contemporary popular music (Shania Twain?!), to pow-wows, to Johnny Cash as fake Indian? Finally, "Economy" begins with a statement of the obvious--"Survival in the environments in which they lived defined the work of the native groups."--followed by a mash-up of references to dugouts, agriculture, tobacco, firearms and alcoholic beverages. This all seems very hastily written, doesn't summarize anything for me, and is in parts quite bizarre: Shania Twain? Johnny Cash? Other sections are problematic in similar ways, particularly with sentences that are oddly worded or say nothing: "Native Americans were stunned to learn..." or "While exhibiting widely divergent social, cultural, and artistic expressions, all Native American groups worked with materials available to them and employed social arrangements that augmented their means of subsistence and survival." I don't mean to be harsh, my comments are more or less exactly what ran through my head as I read the article. Thanks. --Tsavage 05:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the society thing, I changed the subsection to "Society and art". I removed the first sentence for the economy section as redundant. AndyZ 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, an even later review... this is a very broad topic and the article should touch on the many topics briefly but fully. Some sections get significant treatment (e.g. Bering Strait) while others are too brief (e.g. Religion). Other areas like political structure, cultural groupings, language, and history get little or no treatment. The article needs many improvements.--Bkwillwm 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about the others, but I think history gets a pretty significant treatment. I agree though- many of the sections definetly need to be expanded. AndyZ 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object no inline citations in several of the sections, "Other archaeologists have disputed the dating methodology employed, and have also suggested that these "artifacts" are naturally-formed, rather than of human manufacture. Other recent claims for pre-Clovis artifacts have similarly been made in some South American sites. The notion of pre-Clovis habitation continues to be a subject of scholarly debate, and the issue has not yet been satisfactorily resolved." - evidence of weasel words. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added an inline citation for that. AndyZ 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are already some 30 inline citations, and more are being added. The weasel word problem has been taken care of with a reference, though it should be clarified further. Other weasel words are being removed. AndyZ 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; lack of inline citations in important sections (i.e. history) --Spangineer (háblame) 04:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a couple into the early history. AndyZ 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still lots of weasel words—for example, "many Native Americans reject theories of modern anthropology", "is believed to have reached the New World", "They are believed to have reached Alaska", and "molecular genetics studies have suggested". Furthermore, several of the subsections have no references—at the very least, cite a general text that covers the material talked about in that section at the end of the section, so that I don't have to peruse all 7 of your references if I'm trying to verify something. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first one I can't fix (I had nothing to do with writing the article), the second and third examples I found a reference for. The fourth I added "mitochondrial DNA", which I learned in biology but it would be best if somebody could verify this. As for the referencing problem with sections, the only sections are "Economy", "Society", "Indian princesses", "Early relations", "Settling down" (which is quite a lot). AndyZ 01:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed the first example you provided since I can't verify it and seems to show that Native Americans don't deny it but rather criticize it. AndyZ 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1080272054"