Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page documents what needs to be done to improve "history of" articles to featured status.

1 Featured histories
2 Previously nominated
- 2.1 History of England
3 Never nominated
4 History of Bratislava

[edit] Featured histories

These articles have already been accepted as featured. You may want to look at them to learn what an excellent "history of" looks like.

[edit] Previously nominated

[edit] History of England

Previous nomination: Object. The formatting on the page is very ugly, including lots of self-references and confusing explanatory notes and distractively excessive linking. Needs better formatting into 'series' style. DanKeshet 21:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Previous nomination: I have resolved my own objections to my satisfaction, so I'm restarting the clock on this one. I hope some others take a look at it, because I don't know the subject matter that well. DanKeshet 18:35, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
Previous nomination: Object, despite the formatting now brilliant format - thanks Dan. Its a nice article, but has too many links to main articles and see alsos. As i understand brilliant prose, a brilliant article should be complete by itself. HoE is a brilliant overview not a brilliant article. Muriel 13:00, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Note: I don't think Muriel's objection would stand anymore, as it is not actionable.
From first para: "The division dates from the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons" -- it is not clear whether this refers to the existence of England or the division of the United Kingdom into four bits. Lead section needs some work anyway
From the second para: "Pre-Roman England may be determined by the following periods" -- this is not a coherent sentence
Roman Britain: Standard format indicates a link to Roman Britain under the section header, not three see alsos
Anglo-Saxon Britain: "The settlement of England (alternately, the invasion of England) is known as" -- if the parenthetical is supposed to neutralize something controversial, it fails
Anglo-Saxon Britain: Section has too many see alsos, which should be incorporated into the text
England during the Middle Ages: Has a see also under the section header, instead of a "main article"
England during the Middle Ages: Begins with "The defeat of King Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings... led to a sea-change in the history of the small, isolated, island state." This is confusing because the Battle of Hastings has not been described. What was it? Why was it fought? These should be answered before going into the effects. A "sea-change" is very vague -- what changes occurred?
England during the Middle Ages: "The English Middle Ages were to be characterised by" -- "were to be characterised" is bad, reword
England during the Middle Ages: "Henry I, also known as "Henry Beauclerc" (on account of his education)" -- what does "Henry Beauclerc have to do with his education, and is this name really important enough to mention here?
England during the Middle Ages: Too much vagueness (e.g. "characterised by civil war, international war, occasional insurrection, and widespread political intrigue amongst the aristocratic and monarchic elite", "worked hard to reform and stabilise the country and smooth the differences ", "the loss of his son... was to undermine his reforms", "This problem regarding succession was to cast a long shadow over English history")
England during the Middle Ages: What's with all the "was to", as in "was to cast a long shadow"? Write in plain English
England during the Middle Ages: "reign of Henry II represents a reversion" - Henry II's reign really happened, it does not "represent" anything. If a change occurred during that time, say so.
Tudor England: "But, like Charles I in the future, here was a King with no wish to go "on his travels" again." -- do not make a comparison to something you haven't introduced yet. This sentence has absolutely no meaning unless you already know what it's talking about.
Tudor England: "King Henry VIII split with the Roman Catholic Church over a question of his divorce from Catherine of Aragon" -- this seems vague and lacking in detail, considering its apparent importance to English history
Religious conflict and the Civil War: "he First English Civil War broke out in 1642, largely as a result of an ongoing series of conflicts between the then King Charles I and Parliament" -- painfully vague
Recent history: "During the early 1800s, the working classes began to find a voice." -- vague
General observation: Badly written. Doesn't flow very well. It reads like a timeline, just a series of events in chronological order with no context or explanation of cause and effect.
General observation: Needs a pic or two
General observation: Too many see alsos
General observation: Needs a references section

[edit] Never nominated

[edit] History of Australia

This article needs to be expanded greatly, using the subarticles as a guideline and source.

[edit] History of Canada

This article is not written in summary format. Each of the periods of Canadian history should be summarized here with links back to the main articles below each section header.

[edit] History of New Zealand

Lead section: This article has no lead section
Pre-European: "The original settlers were moa hunters, a favourite food source being the large flightless birds which were not unlike ostriches and rheas." -- confusing, it's not clear what "being the large flightless..." is referring to
Pre-European: Why so much info on the moa? Seems unnecessary. If no more details are known about pre-European history, state that and explain why.
Whalers and sealers: Seems kind of vague and lacking in detail
Colony: "The more populous North Island was riven by war and political turmoil while the South Island was prospering" -- what "war and political turmoil" is this referring to?
Colony: "an initial Maori population of perhaps 100,000 to 120,000 (lower than many contemporary figures, which probably overestimated densities in the South Island)" -- what contemporary figures? If new numbers are available and more accurate, why the hell are we using the old and inaccurate numbers?
Colony: "Recovery began slowly (though three decades earlier than among Australia's still worse-affected Aborigines)" - why are Australian Aborigines relevant?
Colony: This section starts in 1840, before moving on to 1820-1835, then 1859, the 1860s and 1900, then going back to 1820, 1857 and 1860, then jumping ahead to 1918 briefly before going back to 1900 and then even further back to 1841 again, 1852 and then the 1890s
Dominion: "New Zealand retained an avowed loyalty to the British Empire" -- avowed by whom?

[edit] History of the United Kingdom

Lead section: Seems to have more info than needed on Ireland
Lead section: "At its nucleus was a system of government created" what does "its" refer to? what does "nucleus" mean in this context?
Union of England and Wales: "land-hungry Normans" -- is "land-hungry" necessary? Is there any proof that they were more land-hungry than anyone else in a position to take land?
Union of England and Wales: "When the land-hungry Normans invaded England, they naturally started pushing into the relatively weak Welsh Marches setting up a number of lordships in the Eastern part of Wales and the border areas, and the usually fractious Welsh, who still retained control of the North and West of Wales, started uniting around leaders such as Llywelyn the Great." -- run-on sentence, kind of confusing
Union of England and Wales: "Edward I finally succeeded in conquering the last remaining native Welsh principalities" -- Is Edward I Norman?
English Conquest of Ireland: "John (unexpectedly) became king in 1199" why was this unexpected?
English Conquest of Ireland: this bit seems to end with England controlling only a small portion of Ireland. Henry VIII was King of Ireland, sure, but when did he gain control over the rest of the island?
The Union of Two Crowns: "Scotland was an independent kingdom that resisted English rule" -- as a first sentence, this is terrible. How about starting by defining Scotland?
The Union of Two Crowns: "Scotland because of her climate and her relatively more despotic government tended to be poorer than her southern neighbour. However, political instability and the "Auld Alliance" with France made successive English governments very nervous, and the perceived need to separate Scotland from Catholic France was one of the driving forces in the Scottish Reformation." -- the "however" implies there is connection between the two sentences, but this connection is not apparent
The Union of Two Crowns: "She was a figure of intrigue, who because of doubts among adherents to the old religion (Catholicism) in England about the legality of Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was seen by many as a more legitimate heir to the English throne than her Protestant cousin Elizabeth I, the occupant of the throne." -- bad, bad, bad sentence in so many ways
Republican Rule 1649: much too brief
The Act of Union 1707: "Queen Anne now became the first 'British' Queen." explain what this means and why it is important
General observation: Why does it start so late? If the article is supposed to be documenting the rise of the United Kingdom (i.e. the process by which the "kingdom" becomes "united"), make this more explicit in the lead.
Act of Union 1800: "After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain." -- what defeat is being referred to?
Ireland in the United Kingdom: Remove the taken from History of Ireland bit as unnecessary, why are four whole paragraphs totally unwikified?
Ireland in the United Kingdom: "In 1912 a further home rule bill passed the house of commons but was defeated in the house of lords, as was the bill of 1893,but by this time the house of lords had lost its veto on legislation and could only delay the bill by 2 years" -- why does this start out in 1912 before going back in time to 1893?
Northern Ireland: Wikify

[edit] History of the United States

Lead section: There is no lead section
Pre-Colonial America: Much too brief
Colonial America (1493-1776): Much too brief
History of the United States (1776-1789): Much too brief
History of the United States (1789-1861): Introduce the Louisiana Purchase
History of the United States (1789-1861): "A few weeks afterwards, war broke out between Britain and Napoleonic France." -- this seems to imply that there is a cause and effect relationship between the Louisiana Purchase and the war, but this is not supported by the text
History of the United States (1789-1861): "The New England Federalists opposed the war. Their reputation would suffer in the aftermath of the war." -- Both sentences beg "why" (i.e. why did they oppose the war and then suffer in the aftermath)
History of the United States (1789-1861): What is "'status quo ante" and why can't it be written in plain English?
History of the United States (1789-1861): "The War of 1812 essentially resulted in the maintenance of the 'status quo ante'after bitter fighting, which lasted until January 8, 1815 (ironically after the peace treaty) on many fronts but, crucially, the Treaty of Ghent which officially ended the war saw the end of the British alliance with the Native Americans." -- this sentence gives me a headache
History of the United States (1789-1861): "After Napoleon's defeat and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, an era of relative stability began in Europe." -- Napoleon has not been introduced yet, it's confusing because it seems like he was the British leader during the war of 1812 or something, explain who he is and why he is important to US history
History of the United States (1789-1861): "In May 1846 Congress declared war on Mexico" -- surely there was a reason for this, even if a crappy one
History of the United States (1789-1861): "In 1854 the proposed Kansas-Nebraska Act abrogated the Missouri Compromise by providing that each new state of the Union would decide its stance on slavery." this appears to be the first reference to a debate over slavery
History of the United States (1865-1918): Much too brief
Interwar America and World War II (1918-1945): "The United States Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles; instead, the United States signed separate peace treaties with Germany and her allies." -- it is implied but not stated that the Senate didn't ratify because of the harsh terms; encyclopedia articles should never imply, and always state
Interwar America and World War II (1918-1945): "Disillusioned by the failure of the war to achieve the high ideals promised by President Woodrow Wilson, the American people chose isolationism: they turned their attention inward, away from international relations and solely toward domestic affairs." -- very vague; how do we know Americans felt this way, and why?
Interwar America and World War II (1918-1945): "The unevenness was also geographic: the standard of living in rural areas fell increasingly behind that of urban and suburban areas which saw dramatic improvements in housing and urban planning." Poor sentence, should be split; what does the "also" refer to? There is no previous mention of "the unevenness" (is unevenness a word? it sure is ugly)
Interwar America and World War II (1918-1945): "alcohol was prohibited by an amendment to the constitution in order to alleviate various social problems. It was enacted through the Volstead Act." -- vague, profligate use of passive voice should be curbed
Interwar America and World War II (1918-1945): "Prohibition ended in 1933 by another change to the constitution; it is considered to have been a failure by most: consumption of alcohol did not decrease markedly while organized crime was strengthened." -- despite someone's efforts, this has not been neutralized by writing "it is considered... by most"
Interwar America and World War II (1918-1945): "The Stock Market crash in 1929 and the ensuing economic depression have been endlessly debated, often along ideological lines." bad sentence. who debates this, and why? does anybody debate it on non-ideological lines? if this is referring to debates over the causes of the Great Depression, who cares? this isn't an article on the Great Depression, and we don't need to go in to historians' varying interpretations of the period
History of the United States (1945-1964): Much too brief
History of the United States (1964-1980): Much too brief
Contemporary United States History (1980-present): Much too brief
General observation: Needs a pic or two
General observation: Needs some references