Talk:Indigenous people of the Everglades region

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Indigenous people of the Everglades region has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 6, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 5, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed May 17, 2008 Peer review Reviewed May 24, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Florida      (Rated GA-Class) Florida Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Florida; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Mid This article has been rated as a Mid priority article WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale. Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there. Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. WikiProject History     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Additional information: This article is currently undergoing an A-Class review. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed.

Contents 1 Misquote? 2 Clarification 3 GA review 4 Some comments

[edit] Misquote?

The article include the following quote: "These Indians have no gold, no silver, and less clothing. They go naked except for some breech cloths woven of palms, with which the men cover themselves; the women do the like with certain grass the grows on trees. This grass looks like wool, although it is different from it."

The bolded the is obviously incorrect, but is that how it appeared in original source? I'd check myself if it were available online. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yah, it's that. Thanks for the heads-up. Let me know if you see any other glaring errors. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

"The Paleo-Indians then slowly transitioned into the Archaic peoples of the Florida peninsula, most probably due to the extinction of big game. Archaic people were primarily hunter-gatherers who depended on smaller game and fish, and relied more prominently on plants for food."

More prominently than the game and fish, or more prominently than the Paleo-Indians? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarified. Thanks for the heads-up on that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Just a few spots that should be cleaned up.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few prose bobbles.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Lead, second sentence seems a bit awkward to me, but not sure how to reword it.
• Lead, sentence starting "However, 6500 years ago..." I think I'd word it "... and the Paleo-Indians slowly adapted to the new conditions. Archaelogists call the cultures that resulted from the adaptations Archaic peoples." which gives a better explanation and avoids the impression that the people themselves called themselves Archaic.
• Lead, second paragraph. "Missionize"? Eeew... what's wrong with "convert and conquer them"? Missionize sounds like buinsessspeak
• Same section and paragraph, "The Calusa were more powerful in numbers and politics." Perhaps "... more powerful in numbers and political structure."?
• Perhistoric peoples section, You introduce the Paleo-Indians in the lead, but the lead isn't really an introduction, it's a summary of the whole article. You need to introduce them again in this section, not just start out in media res talking about their diet.
• I suggest this wording for the sentence starting "The Paleo-Indian diets...".. try "The Paleo-Indian diets were dominated by small plants and the wild game available, which included saber-toothed cats, sloths and spectacled bears."
• Drop "that comprised Paleo-Indian diets" from the last sentence of the first paragraph. Makes things much simplier.
• First sentence of the second paragraph, see above in the lead about suggestion. Transitioned is really sounding businessspeakish to me.
• Okay, are the Glades III the Calusa? It suddenly jumps from that to Calusa with no tie in between the two.

Overall, very nice article. I'd suggest finding someone skilled at copyediting to go through and do a thorough copyedit, it's wordy and would benefit before FAC in having a good pruning (which I am not capable of doing, sorry. I write wordier than this!).

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth.

Second sentence gone. Though "missionize" is a word used by anthropologists in the books I used, I changed it. Everything else changed per your suggestions. Any other suggestions you have before I try to take this to FA I would appreciate. I still have to change that source for the casinos. I'm working on the last article and hope to have it posted to the mainframe this weekend. Thanks for your review. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I kept holding myself back from doing it at FA level, not GA level. I do suggest a copyeditor, if you don't find one by the middle of next week, drop me a note and I'll lend my (very poor) efforts at it. Finding someone better than I would be better though!

I put a note on the FA team to focus on this group of articles (which I think brought you to look at its sources last week), but I wanted to finished Restoration of the Everglades first. I won't try to put it up for FA until that's done, I notify the FA Team proposal page, and get someone else to look at it. Hopefully lots of someone elses. Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

• Should Everglades be linked in the first sentence? I know there's probably some guideline cautioning against linking words in the article title, but I feel that this would make for a good exception.
• The journal articles should probably list the specific page numbers that back up the Wiki's claims instead of (what I presume are) the page ranges of the entire articles. BuddingJournalist 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for the first question. I think if that becomes an FAC request I'll go ahead and do it.

And I've never seen the request in the 2nd suggestion, and I hope I don't have to deal with that. For all the journal articles I've used in all the articles I've written... Kill me now.

Thanks for reading it, and the suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, the first one isn't really that big of a deal. If the second one comes up at FAC, I think I have access to the journal articles through JSTOR, so I can help out there. The second one seems to me to be analogous to providing a page number for book sources. ::shrug:: Well-done with the article though. Prose flows beautifully. Haven't really finished reading yet, but I'll get around to it. BuddingJournalist 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, God. Seriously. Do you know how many citations I have from journal sources? From all my articles? That would take me months to take care of, and unless it's absolutely going to keep me from getting an FA, and expressly stated at WP:CITE would I try to do that. --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)