Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Territorial evolution of the United States/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC).

Territorial evolution of the United States

 * Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been a month since the last nom, which died with a whimper instead of objections. I want to try again, because I strongly believe in the quality of this article, with its 400+ citations and years of research, and am more than willing to implement any improvements that come up. And again I must give props to the others who helped with this, mainly User:Jeff in CA and User:XavierGreen. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - I can see you've worked really hard on this, it's an impressive list. If you could look at my nomination, I'd be grateful. — Calvin999  08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I read through this last time but it's so long I unfortunately did not have time for a review. My main concern is actually with the length; even though it's a clear table with just three columns, it's unreadable for practical purposes. Perhaps there could be some sort of color-coding (a narrow column with color and sortable symbol?) to distinguish states joining [leaving] the union, changes in borders between states, territorial gains and losses, and overseas claims, etc. While you've done an incredible job making it more comprehensive from what it used to be, the list is no longer accessible to a casual user who is not dedicated enough to sift through so many minor changes. The sections by decade were also nice, especially to get through the 64 changes of the 1860s :). Reywas92Talk 23:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I could still split it like before, or add anchors... as for color coding, I don't think that would really work because many entries would have multiple categories. (A quick example that comes to mind: March 2, 1861. On this day, a state seceded and also joined the CSA; two new territories were created ; one territory grew; and one territory shrank.) And sorting on that kind of abstracts a change from its history. Remove it from its context and it means much less. --Golbez (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How does this look: I found decades to be too imbalanced, with some being 20 pages and some being 2. But I figured out these few major grouping that could work? What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that works fairly well, but if anyone else has ideas of how to make this not seems so long, do consider them. In the meantime I found no issues in my read-throughs, support with some sort of sectioning. Reywas92Talk 03:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And just to be clear, that was just an idea, I immediately reverted it, but I'm definitely open to discussion on this front. Decades, phases, something that might work. Just because I, very familiar with it, can get around it doesn't mean others can. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put them back, I'm much keener to the idea now. What do you think of them? --Golbez (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks great, Support Reywas92Talk 23:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good in general! -- Pres N  16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments by PresN
 * As per MOS:TQ, punctuation should not be inside of direct quotes unless you're quoting a full sentence that includes that punctuation (I've made this edit for you).
 * Thanks!
 * March 4, 1791 - the dispute map gains some red bits, but the text does not explain; it appears the last "dispute" map was May 12, 1784, which did not highlight those areas in red as the entire country was new/green. Some sort of reminder/note in 1791 would be helpful to mark that they're not new disputes.
 * I'm not sure what you mean; 1784 did note the areas that ... hm. Yeah, actually, they should be red, not green, because their status didn't change - they're still claimed by Great Britain. Lemme fix that.... and, fixed.
 * June 1, 1796 - Reads odd to not start as "The" Southwest Territory
 * Fixed.
 * February 22, 1821 - "The land exchanged in this fashion should not truly count as territory gained or lost" - the "should" is poor tone; replace with "does" or "did"
 * Removed that sentence.
 * September 9, 1850 - This is the only place where I noticed it, but citations should be in number order (not [176][3], as here).
 * All out-of-order citations fixed.
 * March 1, 1862 - the image here has quite different borders with the CSA than the image above it, which is because this whole span you mark different areas as disputed between the internal and external maps; it's unclear (to me) why the US map only marks the CSA states as red, and not the territories/states that the CSA itself claims in the other maps
 * The internal map marks the states red that have withdrawn or been expelled from the congress; the dispute map marks all regions claimed by a foreign country, so while Missouri was never expelled, it was claimed by the CSA. The internal maps are from the "POV" of the US, so they always have the maximal interpretation; the dispute maps show where that interpretation conflicts with others' interpretations.
 * July 18, 1927 - remove external link
 * Fixed.
 * September 24, 1928 - remove external link
 * Fixed.
 * Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support -- Pres N  13:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 23:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.