Talk:History of St. Louis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 03:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be you reviewer. This looks like an interesting article. St. Louis is outside my area of expertise, but after taking a skim through the article, I think this shouldn't have too much of a problem with GA. AstroCog (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review
GA criteria will be discussed here. AstroCog (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I am still here and working on this. It's a very long article. AstroCog (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Generally headings and subheadings don't begin with articles such as "a" or "the". Two headings begin with "the": "The Arch..." and "The Fourth City" - would it be appropriate here to change them to "Arch and..." or "Fourth City and..."?
 * Reworded to fix the problem. poroubalous (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to further condense the lead into something smaller? AstroCog (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some cutting (it's down to four graphs now); let me know and I can clean it up or cut it further. poroubalous (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No obvious problems to me. I'm not a historian, though.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) 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):
 * I think the alt-text for the images could be improved by making them more generally descriptive. Instead of staying, "A photograph of the St. Louis courthouse", you could say, "A photograph of a courthouse, with two neo-classical building-wings and a cupola dome," or something like that.
 * I think I did what you wanted here; if there are images that I left out of the alt text expansion that need more, let me know and I'll put more relevant description in on each. poroubalous (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good.AstroCog (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: I'm satisfied with this article, and the changes made during the review. To me this easily is GA quality now. Cmguy777, you seem to be knowledgeable about specific content associated with this subject. Any glaring omissions left? If not, I'm promoting the article.
 * OK, three days without additional comment. I'm promoting the article. Good job! AstroCog (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, three days without additional comment. I'm promoting the article. Good job! AstroCog (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:

Cmguy777's observations
The article is very lenghthy, although that is acceptable, since St. Louis history is extensive. The lead needs references. The lead needs to have a few references. If possible the lead needs to be condensed preferably to 3 or 4 paragraphs. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Something could be mentioned of the Fur Trade. St. Louis during the 1820' and 1830's was the hub city for fur trappers or western travel, before the railroads. I believe Jedediah Smith, fur trapper and trader, needs to be mentioned in the article.  He opened up the American West for the United States through his discoveries and explorations. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear you on the fur trade; I did some work on other fur trade articles, and I see your point that it's a weakness here. Smith, Ashley, and Lisa all need to be better discussed. Thanks for pointing that out! poroubalous (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead does not necessarily need references, per MOS. What should be referenced are potentially controversial statements or claims likely to be challenged. That is something that should be decided by consensus by the article's editors. I do see that there is really just one main editor on this, but perhaps some discussion can still take place. I agree that the lead could be condensed a bit. AstroCog (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to put in citations if there are challenged claims or potentially controversial statements; I'll make a discussion area on that point here on the talk page. I made the lead five paragraphs (in contravention of WP: Lead) because there were five main parts to the article; I agree though that there are things that could be snipped out and condensed, and I know that three or four are the ideal. poroubalous (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Information on Jedediah Smith and William H. Ashley has been added. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe one reference on the American Indian sentence in the lead would be good for the article. The MOS policy does not exclude cites in the lead. One reference in the lead is good in my opinion, even if the subject is not controversial, I believe any lead cites add to the historical weight of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the Whiskey Ring might be good. That was a nation wide scandal during the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant.  I believe the leader of the ring, John McDonald, a Grant appointment, was in St. Louis. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Added information on the Whiskey Ring and trials. I didn't find much to speak about John McDonald besides him being the local tax agent who was convicted in the trials. He seems like he needs his own article, actually. poroubalous (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also mention Leonidas C. Dyer and the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Added Dyer stuff -- I hadn't even thought about that omission. Thanks! poroubalous (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I would say Rep. Dyer and the NAACP kept Civil Rights on the national agenda. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)