Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] History of South Carolina

Moved the old nomination to an archive. Since it was last nominated, this article has been majorly fixed up, in its wording, its table on contents, and its lack of content, plus a section and subarticle on 1787-1850 was added that granted it two or three objects. Toothpaste 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support You have certainly put a lot of effort into researching and writing the article (you went as far back as prehistory? Done fairly well!) However, my main concerns are:
  1. The labelling of the first section (that can be easily sorted; try Pre-colonisation instead of Prehistory)
  2. Colonial Period through to Antebellum South Carolina; they come across as summaries more than sections (which is especially worrying for Colonial Period due to its lack of length)

  If you can sort those out, then I'll put more support behind it. --JB Adder | Talk 05:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed number 1. I think I fixed number 2. Thank you for your help. Toothpaste 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You've done enough to sway me...my vote is changed. Good luck. --JB Adder | Talk 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Object--the writing in many sections is choppy. My biggest problem is with the lead--it seems to be a disparate collection of summary sentences, with no connection between them. A similar problem can be found in "Antebellum South Carolina", which skips from nullification to Denmark Vesey to the Trail of Tears without establishing why these facts were important, or what connection there is between them. In short, there needs to be more explanation--a few sentences along the order of "In the ante-bellum period, South Carolina's economy was based mainly on the slave-trade and cotton planations" (or whatever). Less telling and more explaining. Meelar (talk) 16:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Geogre fixed the lead for me, and I fixed Antebellum South Carolina. Did we do well enough? Toothpaste 21:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The lead should be good now (I added a paragraph about Reconstruction and trimmed a few details of the civil war). As for the antebellum section, not quite. For example, the first sentence is "Due to the invention of the cotton gin in 1786, the economies of the Upcountry and the Lowcountry became fairly equal in wealth, although also triggering a massive rise in the slave trade". Why would the invention of the cotton gin spur this change? Also, the paragraph about Denmark Vesey needs an introduction--something like "Tensions over the institution of slavery were a key feature of South Carolina life during the antebellum period".
      • I explained the causes of the cotton gin's effects and added your suggested introduction to Denmark Vesey. I'd say this Southern U.S. Collaboration of the Week worked well. Toothpaste 20:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Support--my objections have been addressed quite satisfactorily. Good work. Meelar (talk) 15:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The TOC is weird. I'd prefer it if was the normal standard setup -- Joolz 01:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I had changed it from the way it was because, as the edit history shows, someone complained. Toothpaste 13:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support I can now support it :) Well done! -- Joolz 18:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful read, nicely laid out and very much adheres to NPOV. A fine article. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)