Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indigenous people of the Everglades region

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [1].

Indigenous people of the Everglades region[edit]

This is the first of five articles regarding the Everglades I hope to bring to FA. It has had an extensive peer review and has passed GA. I created this and three other articles to complement the main Everglades article, which will be the last to come here. This is the shortest, and actually....feels rather nekkid, compared to my other tomes. I hope you may find that a relief. I'll do what needs to be done to get it featured. Thank you for reading it. Article creator. Moni3 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Approximately, 5,000 years ago" → "Approximately 5,000 years ago"
  • "1743 [7]" → "1743[7]"
  • I suggest linking "game" in the first sentence to Game (food) because it isn't used in the sense of Game, which is what it usually means far more often.

Gary King (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I fixed the first two probs. For the third...I mean...really? People need a link to game? I just spent a couple minutes laughing out loud. Are they visualizing these Paleo-Indians stalking prehistoric versions of...Monopoly? Stratego? Did the giant Risk throw those little plastic pieces at them in defense while the Indians threw spears at the board? Did they follow Connect Four over the ice bridge from Russia to Alaska? Screw Gary Larson. I'm drawing that one for myself... --Moni3 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think linking Game is a valid point and would be worthwhile, the lead isn't remotely overlinked and the definition is relevant. It's not necessarily just because of the potential for confusion (which exists, even if it is slight) - climate, casino and drought are all (quite properly) linked in the article, for example. Adacore (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Climate and casino can't be confused for different terms. "Game" is understood in the context. And I am afraid of Tony1. Don't tell him. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are too familiar with the article, then; otherwise, maybe common words like "casino" should be unlinked (there are more examples in the body). I know what game is, but don't think I have ever used it in a day-to-day conversation or even read it anywhere – a simple link would allow me to click on it to learn more. Isn't that the whole point of linking words – to let the reader click on them to learn more about topics that are important to the article they are currently reading? Gary King (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to cap this because I would rather not receive any more sarcasm thrown my way. Gary King (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A nice article on an interesting topic. First off, I confess that it left me wishing for more information on the Calusa and the Tequesta. I understand that this is just an introductory article, but still.. a little bit more information on their way of life and culture wouldn't hurt. The way things are now - I'm sorry if I'm being harsh here - the Calusa and the Tequesta lived in Florida, were skilled travelers in canoes, and hunted small game; the only difference between them was that the Calusa had human sacrifices. Anyway, maybe other reviewers will feel differently about the content. Style-wise, I'm no expert, but I believe it needs at least some copy-editing - there are instances of words and names repeated a bit too many times, some redundancy-related issues, and sometimes the text doesn't really flow. A few examples:

  • Section "Calusa", second paragraph: "In 1545 a 13-year-old boy was the only survivor of a shipwreck off the coast of Florida." - there's no mention of this boy in the next sentence, so its a little bit difficult to understand that Fontaneda was that boy (was he? I'm still not sure!); maybe some context wouldn't hurt (i.e. along the lines of "Much of the information on Calusa was provided by Hernando de Escalante Fontaneda, who [...]"
  • "Smaller tribes of Ais and Jaega, lived to the east of Lake Okeechobee, and they paid regular tributes to Carlos." - "they" is not required here.
  • "The main village of the Calusa, and home of Carlos" - sorry, you lost me here. Throughout the section, you use two words for the chief - "Carlos" and "cacique", and to confuse matters further, Carlos is actually another name for the Calusa. And then there's "the leadership of cacique Carlos" in the last paragraph. Ouch!
  • "Building shell mounds.." - you were talking about human sacrifices, and then suddenly switch to this; maybe it'd flow slightly better if you added something basic like "Another important tradition was.." to the beginning of the sentence.

etc.; more experienced editors will no doubt provide more examples.

I also have a small issue with the sentence "Each year a Christian was required to be sacrificed to appease a Calusa idol." - I feel this needs some clarifiation. Clearly the custom couldn't have existed before the Europeans came to the Americas, was there a reason for the Calusa to start doing this? Who did they sacrifice before the Europeans came? Etc. Of course, this is of minor importance, I just thought it was weird, especially stated flat-out like that.

Finally, perhaps wikifying some of the geographical places wouldn't hurt - I realize you're going for one link per article thing, but I feel the reader might need a link to Lake Okeechobee while reading about the Calusa, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being harsh, however I have to point out that there is not a lot of material that exists about these people. I would like to know more about their ways of life as well. I'll do my best to hunt down more information if you could be more specific about what it is you would like to see: more about religion? food? society? I can't promise anything, but I will search.
Basically, I thought some of the information from the articles Calusa and Tequesta could be incorporated (these articles don't have too many inline citations, but some references are provided - possibly helpful?); the stratified society of the Calusa (and there you have a mention of multiple chiefs, which would help to partly eliminate the confusion we discussed) and their belief in reincarnation, the complete lack of agriculture in Tequesta life, the mention of Miami Circle, possible human sacrifices in Tequesta culture, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most of the issues you mentioned. As for the last about the Christian sacrifice, the sentence preceding that one says that Fontaneda is describing the sacrifice of Christians. I can't really state what Fontaneda did not, and since he wasn't present before Europeans were there, he didn't state that that practice was a new one.
I see, thanks for clearing this up. --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that the Spanish references to the tribe as Carlos and then naming their chief Carlos is confusing, but it is anthropologically accurate.
But don't you think some clarification is needed? For instance, exactly who is a "cacique Carlos" - one of the chiefs or a particularly important chief? The Ais and the Jaega paid regular tributes to a/the chief, or to the Calusa? Or "home of Carlos" - this probably refers to _the_ main chief, but the reader has to guess. Perhaps after you explain the term "cacique" in the second paragraph, you could make a notice for the reader that, to avoid confusion, "Carlos" will only refer to a chief in this particular article. And edit the article accordingly, where needed. Hmm? --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the time you took to put into the review. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On inclusion of information on the Miami Circle: I'm more than a little bit embarrassed here. I don't live in South Florida, but this, among a few other reasons, may persuade me to subscribe to the Miami Herald. I didn't know about the Miami Circle until yesterday. All my sources refer to information prior to 1998, of course. However, I did some searching and reading. I can include the following information, but I am concerned that it may have WP:UNDUE weight due to recent discoveries. I am also concerned because the site is still not fully understood:

Because little was recorded about the Tequesta in Spanish histories, much of the details about their lives is unknown. However, more evidence of their society became uncovered when in 1998, a high-rise apartment complex in Miami was torn down. During the excavation, a formation was discovered that indicated the site to be archeologically significanct: a circle 38 feet (12 m) in diameter composed of 24 shallow basins surrounded by more than 600 postholes.[1] It became known as the Miami Circle, and initial analysis was controversial as ownership of the 2.2 acres (0.0089 km2) parcel was contested. The Miami Circle is located at the mouth of the Miami River near Biscayne Bay in prime real estate territory. Initial reports disagreed as to whether it represented an ancient site, or a modern byproduct of the nearby apartment complexes' septic tank drainage. However, a report completed by the National Park Service concluded the site was more than 2,000 years old and suggested "(t)he site may have been used for ceremonial purposes, and this use may have spanned the period from when the Miami Circle was built to a later period of habitation".[2]

--Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it does seem to be an important site, I suggest simply adding a notice about it - i.e. something along the lines of "The recently discovered Miami Circle, a large man-made structure located at the mouth of the Miami River, may have been built by the Tequesta, although the issue remains controversial as of 2008." --Jashiin (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the issues I had raised above have been resolved. This is a very nicely written, tight and compact article about an important part of the history of indigenous people of North America. The difficult task of writing an introductory, summary-style article (without going overboard with the content) has been handled well here by Moni3. --Jashiin (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adacore (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Generally this seems a well written, informative and well researched article. I only have some minor comments:

  • In the lead, "The Calusa were more powerful in number and political structure." - does this mean their internal politics were more developed and powerful, or does it mean they were the politically stronger of the tribes when it came to interactions between them? Could this be clarified?
  • Also lead, "The last mention of the Tequesta was their transport to Havana." - what transport? When? I guess this lack of detail might be intended to draw one into reading the article, but it left me confused.
  • In Prehistoric Peoples, "The large game that were adapted for desert conditions..." - I'd say "adapted to".
  • In Prehistoric Peoples, "They were highly adaptable to shifting climate and..." - perhaps "They were able to adapt to the shifting climate and..." or "They were able to rapidly adapt to shifts in climate and..." (Yes, I know, a split infinitive). Not a big thing, obviously, but the way it's written now just doesn't scan for me. Feel free to implement any of the suggestions or not.
  • Minor quibble, but the "Cultural Periods in Prehistoric South Florida" includes the Historic period which is, by definition, not Prehistoric. I can't think of any way to improve this though, unless you extend it further up to the present day (with a 'Modern' or 'Recent' period, whatever the correct term would be) then remove "Prehistoric" from the title.
  • The image "Indigenous people of Everglades map" has both Ais and Jaega with the same colour in the key. Is this correct, or is one of them meant to be the brown colour seen around "Charlotte Harbour" to the north of the map? I can't tell for certain from the text.
  • In Tequesta, why say "They were skilled travellers in canoes..." rather than just "They were skilled canoeists..." which seems to be more relevant in context as well?
  • Also in Tequesta, "After Menéndez visited, there are few records of the Tequesta; a reference to them in 1673, and further Spanish contact to convert them." - this seems to be left hanging. Perhaps finish the sentences with "...are the only known reports." Or something similar (if this is true).
  • In Seminole, "...Creeks invaded the Florida peninsula and conquered and assimilated..." I don't like the repeated "and", perhaps change to "invaded the Florida peninsula, conquering and assimilating...".
  • In Seminole, Timucuan should link to Timucua_language, not Timucuan?
  • Does the term "Indian agent" have a specific meaning? It doesn't really seem to fit to me, but I may just not know the terminology.
  • The articles on Arawak and Taino are tribes from a similar region, but as far as I can see didn't have any direct impact on the Everglades indigenous people. Are they relevant enough to be linked in the "see also" section? A quick search on their pages doesn't reveal any mention of Everglades, Seminole, Calusa or Tequesta.
Capped mostly resolved comments. Adacore (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Jashiin said, the page could perhaps do with a more thorough copyedit, but I don't think it's got any major problems. A very interesting read, I learnt a lot - nice work! Adacore (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Jashiin and Adacore: I'll work on more detail without taking too much from the main Calusa and Tequesta articles, focusing on society. Give me a couple days to read up and do that. I'll also try to make it clear that the Spanish not only referred to the tribe as Carlos, but the most powerful cacique as Carlos. Adacore, I made most of the changes you requested. The table with Prehistoric and Historic is verbatim from the source. I'm not going to change it. Thank you both for reading it and for your reviews. I'll leave a note here when I think I've addressed the detail you requested. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support None of my concerns were showstoppers, and most have been addressed now anyway. All in all a good, well written, well referenced article covering the intended scope. Adacore (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources look good. The two whole links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I passed this article for GA a while ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • I suppose the first question is "people" or "peoples"? Not that there's a right or wrong answer, I'm just curious why you picked one over the other.
Lead
  • Opening sentence - wouldn't "about 15,000 years ago" read better than "approximately 15,000 years ago"?
  • Second sentence: I wouldn't open with "There,"; could use it after "landscape", but I think the sentence would read better without it
  • Third sentence: "Climate changes" or "Climate change"?
  • Same sentence: "and the Paleo-Indians slowly adapted to the new conditions" - is the introduction of the rate of adaptation supported by sources, or is it just based on the assumption that adaptation is slow? In addition, isn't it implicit in the fact that they survived?
  • Fifth sentence: "They were better suited for environmental changes than their ancestors"; this bothers me. Is there evidence that supports this assertion? The prehistoric peoples section suggests otherwise ("the population decreased overall on the peninsula").
  • Sixth sentence: "Approximately 5,000 years ago, the climate shifted again to cause the regular flooding from Lake Okeechobee that became the Everglades ecosystems"; apart from my dislike for "approximately" when "about" would work, was the climate change abrupt? This seems to imply that it was?
  • Second para, second sentence: "Descriptions of these peoples were given by the first Spanish explorers" - something more along the lines of "The earliest written descriptions...come from Spanish explorers who sought to..." would read better.
  • Fourth sentence: "The Calusa were more powerful in number and political structure" - I don't think that "powerful" is really the best adjective to describe either "number" or "political structre". Maybe "The Calusa were more numerous and had a more sophisticated political structure"?
  • Fifth sentence: "but extended" or "and extended"? I.e., do you intend to contrast the extent of their territory with their power base at Ft. Myers?
  • Seventh sentence: "Both societies were well adapted to live in the various ecosystems of the Everglades regions, and often traveled through the heart of the Everglades, though they rarely lived within it"; again, I am not so sure if "adapted" is the best term, but more importantly this sentence has too many distinct ideas. (I would split it at the "and").
  • Eighth sentence: "After more than 200 years of relations with the Spanish, both societies lost cohesiveness"; is this something that happened after 200 years, or over the course of 200 years?
Calusa
  • First sentence: "What is known of the inhabitants of Florida after 1566 was recorded by European explorers and settlers"; I think this is a little out of place here. It isn't the best opening sentence, and it's out of sequence.
  • Third sentence is too long and the final thought (where he found at least one of them fluent in Spanish) is a little awkward tacked onto the end.
  • Fifth sentence: "and the tribe gained a reputation for violence enough to cause future explorers to avoid them" - "enough" feels wrong. Maybe "that caused"?
  • Sixth sentence: "they were successfully able" - either "successful" or (better, IMO) "able" is sufficient.
  • Second para, first sentence: "The Calusa were referred to as Carlos by the Spanish, which may have sounded like Calos, a variation of the Muskogean word kalo meaning "black" or "powerful"" - I don't follow this sentence. Carlos may have sounded like Calos, or Calos may have sounded like Carlos?
  • Fourth sentence: "For seventeen years he lived with the Calusa"; better "He lived among the Calusa for 17 years".
  • Fifth sentence: "Menéndez took Fontaneda to Spain where he wrote about his observations" - "recorded his observations" or "wrote about his experiences", I think.
  • Seventh sentence: "between the Spanish and the Calusa" - isn't this implied in the previous sentence?
  • Third para, first sentence: "Fontaneda explained" or "recounted"?
  • Fourth sentence: "Fontaneda described that human sacrifice" - no, not "described that"
  • Sixth sentence: "Also of spiritual significance to the Calusa was the building shell mounds of varying sizes and shapes" - "the construction of shell mounds"? (I would move "also of spiritual significance" to the end of the sentence).
  • Fourth para: the first sentence doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the para - it might be better off moved to the prev. para.
  • Fifth para, first sentence: "Calusa villages were sometimes populated by more than 200 inhabitants" - "sometimes had more than"
  • Sixth para: "The Spanish found Carlos uncontrollable, as priests and Calusa fought almost constantly. Carlos was killed when a Spanish soldier shot him with a crossbow." Did the Calusa fight with the priests, or with the Spanish?
  • Third sentence: "Following the leadership of cacique Carlos, leadership of the society passed to two caciques" - "After the death of..."?
Tequesta
  • First para, fourth sentence: "They, too, rarely lived within the Everglades" - I think we've gotten too far from the statement about the Calusa not living in the Everglades to say "they, too". Maybe "like the Calusa"?
  • Same sentence: "but found the coastal prairies and pine rocklands to the east...habitable"; having said earlier that these people were "adapted" to the Everglades, I think "found...habitable" is problematic language, since it implies that they found other areas (the Everglades) uninhabitable.
  • Seventh sentence: "marks where a village once stood" or "marks a village site"?
  • Second para, first sentence: depictions or descriptions? (Depiction tends to be used more for illustrations).
  • Fourth sentence: changing ", but were probably manatees," to "(probably manatees)" would improve readability. Also I think it would be pretty safe to link to West Indian manatee rather than just manatee.
  • Third para, second sentence: "he left them to make contact with the Calusa" implies that the Tequesta were "left to make" contact with the Calusa.
  • Fifth sentence: I think you should use a colon instead of a semi-colon there.
  • Sixth sentence: "The last reference to the Tequesta during their existence"; "last contemporary reference"?
  • seventh sentence: "use only" or "only use"?
Seminole
  • First para, fifth sentence: Muskogean and Creek? Isn't the Creek lang (Muscogee) a Muskogean language?
  • Second para, sixth sentence: "They hunted for what they ate" - doesn't this contradict the prev. sentence, which says that they farmed and raised domestic animals?
  • Second para - overall this seems a little disorganised.
  • Third para, second sentence - this should be broken into 2 sentences
  • Fourth sentence: "Those who did not flee into the Everglades were relocated to Oklahoma Indian territory" - calling Indian Territory Oklahoma at this period in time is a bit of an anachronism.
  • Sixth sentence: "At the end of the third conflict, 20 Seminoles were killed..." - at the end, or over the course? (ie, is this distinct from casualties during the war?)
  • Fourth para, fourth sentence: "a road that spans from Tampa to Miami"? Runs from? Connects?
  • Fifth sentence: "hunters who plundered wildlife" - "plundered" is probably not encyclopaedic language.
  • Same sentence: "impacting" or "which impacted" (or "which made it difficult to sustain themselves through subsistence hunting")
  • Sixth sentence: "They instead began to work in local farms, ranches, and souvenir stands" I don't like "they instead", especially at the start of the sentence, but I think this might be better combined with the idea that subsistence hunting was not longer able to sustain their livelihoods.
Black seminoles

Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is what I get for writing a short article. I made the changes that I agreed would improve the aritcle. There are some requests that would change accuracy, and some that compromise requests from other editors. There are a few issues I clarified, some I deleted, and some I have to work on when I get my sources. Black Seminoles, I understand, were a subculture within the Seminoles. They did not live in the Everlgades - more in central and north Florida. Thank you for reading the article and for the thorough review. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that Indian Territory would be a better link than Oklahoma and "spans from" hurts the part of my brain that hears when I read things (or at least when I read in a careful, nitpicky manner) :) But, I'd say you have an FA. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images by Kelly hi! 13:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedro Menendez image information has been updated. The Charley Cypress image source is the main page for the Florida Memory Collection. You'll have to search for Charley Cypress to find the image, I'm afraid. I would like to change the map to an SVG, but I don't know how. The source information in the map file has been updated. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tagged the map image for conversion, but that category seems badly backlogged. (I don't believe that, in itself, should affect FA promotion.) On the Charley Cypress photo, it is not coming up for me when I search from the linked search page. Can you update the description to provide some brief instructions on exactly how to reach the source for the image? Kelly hi! 14:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydoke. A little red-faced again here since I spelled Charlie's name incorrectly. However, I amended the Source info to include the title and call number of the photo. You should be able to find it much faster with the call number. I tested the Florida Memory site to check. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I formatted the description into the {{Information}} template. Kelly hi! 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I had a couple of issues with regard to clarity which have been resolved on the article's talk page. This is a beautifully written , interesting and well researched article. GrahamColmTalk 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. but the two images on the Seminole family and Charlie Cypress should be moved to commons. If you want me to do that for you, hit my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved those two images and the map to Commons, all have the same name. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be expected to remember the proper names for headings. Sheesh. And fixed the rest of the blah blah. --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I earned my salary for the day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ United States Congress Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2003). "Miami Circle/Biscayne National Park: report (to accompany S. 111)", United States Congress Senate Report 108-4.
  2. ^ Merzer, Martin (January 29, 2008). "Access to ancient site may come in near future", The Miami Herald (Florida), State and Regional News.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Indigenous_people_of_the_Everglades_region&oldid=1138463794"