Talk:Gadsden Purchase/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Images

 * Image tags check out.
 * Images should be arranged throughout the article where appropriate per MOS:IMAGES. They shouldn't be left down at the bottom of the article. Done as best I could
 * Caption for Image:Gadsden Purchase Cities ZP.svg should note that the purchase is in yellow, as obvious as that may seem. Done
 * Image:Map of Arizona highlighting Gadsden Purchase Counties.svg is probably redundant to Image:Arizona population map.png. (Not done, I didn't agree with this)
 * Image:Noaa topo az.jpg and Image:Digital-elevation-map-new-mexico.jpg don't appear to illustrate much for the article. If a place can't be found organically for them it probably would be fine to remove them. Removed
 * I'll try to give suggestions on the image placement below.

MOS/Layout

 * WP:EL Suggests placing the template before the external link section.
 * The book listed should either be moved to a Further reading section or removed. Removed
 * The explanation for the Arizona daily star external link should be incorporated as a reference or removed per WP:EL. Integrated, as well as another source from Google News
 * Various links in the See also section are better incorporated into the body of the article as topic hatnotes such as Main or incorporated into the body text. See also should be there to point readers to related subjects which do not have cause to be regularly linked in the article otherwise (this isn't universal or written in stone, but a general bit of guidance). Done, all that's left are more general subjects that couldn't be linked
 * I have some general layout concerns regarding this article and I will try to articulate them below:
 * The Extent section should largely be split up. The array of coordinates for the treaty boundary should be made into an infobox for the top of the article.  The border text of the treaty can be moved into the ratification section (or elsewhere) or removed entirely. Done, though this needs more tweaking per Updates section
 * The Eventual railroad development section should be moved up to the history portion. Possibly as a sub-section to "eventual statehood". Moved


 * "The disputed territory (Mexico favored the map, the US the survey results) involved a few thousand square miles and about 3,000 residents..." Parenthetical asides should be avoided. Perhaps remove it and introduce it into the previous sentence in the text? Done
 * There are quite a few comma splices and other grammatical errors in the text. I am...the wrong person to help clean that up, but a c/e should be found to clean up the prose. Done, as best I could; if there are still noticeable errors, we can have another user come in for a quick check
 * The lede should include a summary of all major points in the article per WP:LEAD. I think some discussion of the controversy, statehood and pop sections should be included. Sort of done, I made the lede more general by moving some things down into the history section

Small issues (not MOS)

 * "...a treaty signed by President Franklin Pierce on June 24, 1853, and then ratified by the U.S. Senate." When was it ratified by the senate? Is the exact date important for the lede? Done Date added to lede
 * "The administration of Franklin Pierce, strongly influenced by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis,[1]..." Why is this cited? Citation moved
 * "The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had ended the Mexican-American War, but there were issues affecting both sides that still needed to be resolved." This should be absorbed into the following section or expanded. (Sort of done, I added another clause briefly summing up the three issues)
 * Southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad This is a generally good section. I would prefer that the reader be presented for some connection between the push for a southern railroad and the eventual Gadsden purchase.  Why that part of Arizona?  The lead makes some causal connections and explanations but I don't see this mirrored in the body.  I see the comment on flat land later in the article, but the flow in the lede seems clearer than the flow in the article. (Section from lede moved down)
 * Richard Kluger can be wikilinked. Done
 * "Historian Richard Kluger, however, described the difficulties of the task:" I would just summarize the quote that follows this passage. He doesn't explain the issue in an inimitable or pithy fashion.  The reader is (IMO) better off with a good summary. (Not done, I wasn't sure how to proceeed here; the quote is simple enough, can't really be summarized)
 * "Americans had failed in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo negotiations to secure the right of transit across the 125 mile wide Isthmus of Tehuantepec." This sentence is worded awkwardly. Done
 * "In 1847 these rights were acquired by a British bank, a development that could lead, Americans feared, to British colonization in violation of the Monroe Doctrine." Is this attributed to any source? The Monroe doctrine was a foreign policy stance by the united states, not a binding constraint on the British.  If the source notes this that's fine. (I believe this is part of the sourced statement; however, I added "in violation of the precepts of the Monroe Doctrine" to make it more clear)
 * "The situation was totally muddled, and it appeared that only government intervention could straighten things out." this seems a conversational, if accurate depiction. Eh, removed anyway, not sourced
 * "Pierce’s selection as Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis," If we are talking post March, this sentence can read: "Pierce’s Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis,..." Done
 * "The Gadsden Purchase helped to end Santa Anna's political career." Is there a source for this statement? Removed
 * Population I would left justify the table and right justify the image, allowing text to flow between the two. (Not done, no idea how to do this)
 * Eventual railroad development There are two bare external links to pdfs in this section. (Needs more work per Updates section)
 * Are there sources that cover the railroad section or the controversy section? (Not sure here)
 * "Ironically, most of the route was north of the Gadsden Purchase, and most of the Purchase was south of the route." The first half kind of implies the second. If this was intentional for some rhetorical balance, please disregard this comment. (I rather like this sentence, rhetorical value)
 * "the Senate vote 27 to 18 in favor of the treaty which fell three votes short of the necessary two-thirds required for treaty approval." → "27 to 18 in favor of the treaty, falling three votes short..." Done
 * "It was expected by Gwin that a southern route would be approved -- both..." Evidently double hyphens are the WORST THING EVER. In this case you are looking to replace these with &mdash;the em dash. Done

Overall
This is an interesting article. It is informative, complete and factual. I think that once the layout, image and larger issues here are dealt with the article will pass easily. The copyediting thing is important but I'm not going to demand a complete check prior to passing this article (As I didn't list the errors and provide suggestions). I didn't look into the POV because I don't know much about the subject but the article appears neutral. I'm placing this article on hold for ~7 days to allow for the minor issues to be worked out. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review this article. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede
The lede should be a stand alone summary of the significant aspects of the article. For reasons that are not readily apparent, two paragraphs were totally eliminated from the lede with no explanation. These paragraphs contain essential information on reasons why the purchase was initiated and describes its eventual failure.

I am not sure why two paragraphs were added that contain nothing but a detailed description of the boundaries -- detail (that besides being extremely boring prose) that does not seem to be appropriate for an article lede, especially since there is a map that right along side the lede that identifies the territory being discussed. I have reduced these paragraphs to a footnote although I have no objection to it being incorporated elsewhere in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs were not eliminated, they were merely moved into the history section just below. As Protonk noted, the history section does not make any direct statements about why the United States was interested in building trains there, so I moved the relevant info from the lede down to improve flow of the article. See also Protonk's recommendation that the Extent section be broken up, which is why the geolocation coordinates have been moved into the lede. As I noted above, there aren't really any relevant infoboxes for this type of article. Glass  Cobra  10:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that the paragraphs were moved. The problem is that this move adversely effected the content and relevance of the lede.  The suggestion made by the GA reviewer was that the lede be expanded, not reduced.


 * The reason why Southerners were interested in a southern route to the railroad is already covered in the section where you moved the two paragraphs (Southern commercial conventions). There was a commercial interest in the South led by folks like Gadsden, de Bow's et al that saw an economic value to railroad development. The article states:


 * Gadsden wanted to connect all Southern railroads into one sectional net.[6] He was concerned about the increasing amount of railroad construction in the North that was resulting in the trade in lumber, farm goods, and manufacturing goods shifting from the traditional north-south route based on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to an east-west axis that would bypass the South. He also saw Charleston, his home town, losing its prominence as a seaport. In addition, many Southern business interests feared that a northern transcontinental route would cut off the South from trade with the Orient, while other Southerners argued that diversification away from a strictly plantation economy was necessary to keep the South independent from northern bankers.


 * Later in the article it is explained how this desire was combined with a desire to expand territorial acquisition beyond simply the minimum needed for the RR. Also included is material to show why the Pierce Adminisration came to favor, or at least support. a southern route. I'm not sure exactly what is missing or is unclear. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Updates
Some other thoughts:
 * The railway map pdf's need full citations as best as possible.
 * I would prefer that the geolocation points not go in the lead unless it is absolutely necessary.
 * See how the histortical marker looks with the default thumbnail size. Done
 * I'll check back later tonight or tomorrow on individual points. If it isn't too much trouble, do you mind striking out or otherwise noting where you have accomplished parts of the suggestions above?  Or if you didn't do something, just leave a note saying why. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply from GlassCobra
Hi Protonk, thanks again for doing this. I struck out the points I addressed as you requested, and added comments in bold or italics depending on whether or not they were completed. I agree that the geolocation points are a bit unwieldy in the lede; however, there aren't any suitable infoboxes for purchases like this (I looked into Template:Infobox Treaty, but it doesn't have a geolocation section). Not sure what to do with the railway maps, what needs to be added to the citations? Perhaps they ought to just be removed. Glass  Cobra  06:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about not fully explaining the citation request. I just mean see what else can be filled out in Cite web.  Date, website, etc.  I don't think you need to fish out where the original source was in order to cite them, just cite the website hosting them. Protonk (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm passing this article. I trust that you guys will work out a satisfactory place for those GPS points that isn't in the lead.  Other than that the remaining issues are small.  Congratulations. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)