Talk:History of St. Louis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory of St. Louis has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
October 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Why no references?[edit]

This article has no references. Wikipedia requires not only references but also in-line citations. Therefore, I put an {{unreferenced}} tag on this article. Jolb 03:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag and added cite needed tags where appropriate (I think there are about three now). poroubalous (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and additions[edit]

I'm rewriting and adding substantially to the article during the next few days using a few references I picked up from the library, starting with James Neal Primm's history of the city. I'll include stuff from a few other sources as I go along and try to incorporate and reference most of the info that's already in the article. poroubalous (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm thinking that this article likely will need to be split into multiple period pages with the main article as a summary (a la History of New York City). I'm still working through the whole thing, but when I finish, I probably will start on splitting up the article. Any thoughts on what dates to use for separate sections? poroubalous (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started splitting the article before finishing it because it was getting pretty long, so I'm working on the whole series now, split into years based on rough dates I came up with: pre-1762, 1763-1803, 1804-1865, 1866-1904, 1904-1980, 1980-present. If we need to tweak those later it's no big deal. poroubalous (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow -- this is a lot more work than I anticipated. My current goals include:
    • Editing the main article down to under 60KB per WP:SIZERULE (naturally this means moving a lot of information to the subarticles) (as of now main article is at 54KB of readable prose size! poroubalous (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • Adding information in the main article on the 1923 bond issue and building campaign
    • Adding information in the main article on the renovations and rehabs of the early 2000s to present
    • Diversifying references, especially for history prior to 1865 (with references from gerteis and van ravenswaay)
    • Editing for grammar/style/wikilinks when possible... poroubalous (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decided to nominate for peer review now that I've tidied up the last few things on my list. poroubalous (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You rock. This article was on my to-do list for a bazillion years. I'll leave some extra comments at the peer review after I finish marveling at its new state. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Do Based on Peer Review[edit]

This is based on comments from Ruhrfisch and Fetchcomms:

  • Evaluate use of wikilinks throughout article
  • Did this for the lead, still going through the rest. poroubalous (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinsert population figures in prose or table form
  • Include Lewis and Clark Expedition
  • Fix unemployment figures in Great Depression
  • Evaluate inclusion of specific years for periods of time (Prohibition, WWII, etc.)
  • Support Primm references with other sources
  • Supported a lot of them so far, but could continue. poroubalous (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Determine "Mound builders" capitalization
  • Fixed this; I checked a source on Mississippian culture and it's lowercase. poroubalous (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locate and insert information about causes of population loss in 1950s and 1960s
  • Insert information on racial issues of 1950s and 1960s
  • Locate and insert information about Jewish history
  • Inserted first Jewish congregation info and early Mormons info. poroubalous (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locate and insert information about architecture, buildings of significance, Citygarden, etc.
  • Inserted graf about 1890s building spurt, incl. Wainwright. Still need to add a few more examples and insert Citygarden. poroubalous (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locate and insert information about the St. Louis Rams

As always, the project is a work in progress. poroubalous (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of St. Louis, Missouri/GA1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA criteria will be discussed here. AstroCog (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    Is there any way to further condense the lead into something smaller? AstroCog (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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:
    No obvious problems to me. I'm not a historian, though.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problems here.
  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):
    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)[reply]
    Looks good.AstroCog (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:

Cmguy777's observations[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Information on Jedediah Smith and William H. Ashley has been added. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would also mention Leonidas C. Dyer and the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added Dyer stuff -- I hadn't even thought about that omission. Thanks! poroubalous (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I would say Rep. Dyer and the NAACP kept Civil Rights on the national agenda. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs references[edit]

A concern was brought at the GA review that the article lead might need references in a few places. Because I've been at this particular article for a while, I'm not really able to see what might be controversial as well as fresh eyes might be able to see. If you see a sentence or ideas that need citations in the lead, please note it here and we can bring consensus on it. I'm reticent to add citations to the lead as everything else in the article already is cited, and it would duplicate the citations. Thoughts? poroubalous (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the 1st paragraph would be a good place for references, since this has to do with St. Louis's early history, including information on American Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, in general the lede should not contain references, especially for a lengthy article like this one. The lede is meant as a summary of information already present in the rest of the article, and as long as the rest is cited, then the lede does not need refs. Per the WP:MOS, the lede should not include information not already in the rest of the article or refs for material cited later on. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apotheosis-of-saint-louis.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Apotheosis-of-saint-louis.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Apotheosis-of-saint-louis.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of St. Louis[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History of St. Louis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of St. Louis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War[edit]

However, with all the necessity of ammunition, St. Louis survived and transformed into a leader among cities.

What does this mean? Valetude (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_St._Louis&oldid=1207555900"