Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina/archive3

History of South Carolina

This is a bit of an unusual case. This article was promoted previously, but there was controversy. Some people thought it amounted to gaming the system. As a compromise, I said I'd renominate it here. First nom, second nom. →Raul654 17:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Well-written article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Object. Overdependence on only two references (only one of which is a history) -- this verges on being a summary of a single work. Are there no topics in South Carolina's history that would benefit from more than one interpretation? As a sidenote, I find the whole business with the quick renomination rather distasteful, and hope that we can avoid allowing such things to take place in the future. - Bantman 18:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Support as previous--it's a well-written and cogent article, though I can see the problems that Bantman has with the low number of references. Meelar (talk) 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Was the territory named after the ship that finally made it to the continent or was there some other reason for calling it Carolina? The text isn't really clear on this point. slambo 19:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. It was named after the Latin form of Charles I's name. Toothpaste 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Now that I've had a chance to read the rest of it, Support. slambo 19:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Support I'd prefer more references, but I think this is worthy of being a featured article Tuf-Kat 21:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Object- besides the low number of refs, I still stand by my previous objection that the lead section is too long. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Eliminating the last paragraph was certainly a bold move. While the lead is still (IMO) long, it looks better now. Also, the last paragraph that was deleted was a summary of "current" South Carolina, so it may not have been appropriate for the "history" article. However, I still would like to see more refs (along with the appropriate addition of facts and expansion) and some in-line refs would be nice. In addition, the "Recent" section, IMHO, should be trimmed down- we really don't need that much detail about lotteries and college scholarships that are irrelevant to South Carolina's history. Otherwise, I stand by my comment last time that it's a well-written article on its way to FA status. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still support: I'll be happy to work with Toothpaste or anyone else in addressing the lead issue, as it is long. (Actually, it's not so much long, IMO, as it is sutured. The seams need to be obscured somewhat from its first and second incarnations.) As for the renomination, the author had nothing to do with that. It's purely procedural and done by Raul. I also think that the two references are not the only two sources of information, but they are the sources of information that required a reference, so I wouldn't object to that, myself. N.b. I've not edited the article, that I recall, except once on its first nomination, to do a little copy editing. Geogre 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I like it, and it is as FAish as at least half of our FAs. Func 08:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Still support - it's a very good article and definately worthy of FA status in my opinion. However I do agree that it would be even better if other sources were checked, but that doesn't alter my vote nor my high opinion of the article -- Joolz 18:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Phroziac ^(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Conditional object: tons of efforts are seen on post-war history, however the amount of photos and images is still inadequate and I wonder if no photos can be put onto the current events section? I'll support if more photos are added with at least one of them in the current events section. (well, as it says, current events, can anybody go and just take a picture?) Deryc k C. 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC) The amount of pictures have increased and the arrangement of the article is good. I've no more opinions to object this as FA. However, adding more pictures can make this a better FA. Deryc k C. 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added a picure to the Recent events section. I'm looking for one on desegregation relevant to South Carolina, but there appear to be none on Wikimedia. Toothpaste 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Sorry I didn't see this before, but I agree with Bantman, two sources is just (very) inadequate. In addition there is no citation of any kind to show what material came from what sources, so verification is made much more difficult. - Taxman ^Talk 22:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Comment, maybe object - I agree with Taxman and Bantman on this. I am also assuming that the external links were used as resources. If so, it may be best to place them in the reference section. As for the more recent events, I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the sources are from news media rather than the listed sources. If so, please note them using inline notations. Pentawing 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the external links as resources. Toothpaste 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about the last point I brought up? I need this clarified and resolved before I can change my vote. Pentawing 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the news media as a source, though the sources I used might have. Toothpaste 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what I need to know is the source of the section concerning recent events, since I am currently under the assumption that the listed sources didn't cover the entire thing. Some statistics might warrent inline citations since that would make it more difficult for a vandal to change the numbers and have no one noticing it. Pentawing 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic booms and busts, Desegregation, and Recent events come from Siglas, Mike (2003). South Carolina. Emeryville, CA: Avalon Travel Publishing. ISBN 1566915457. Edgar, Walter B. (1998). South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: USC Press. ISBN 1570032556 was used for events prior to those, and both were fact-checked against each other. Toothpaste 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you then use inline citations for the statistics (especially for the scholarship passage)? Otherwise, I can't support this article without questioning my own judgement. Pentawing 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Toothpaste 00:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object. The history is not properly balanced: important topics are treated cursorily, and recent events of no great moment are treated at length. In particular, the treatment of nullification and Calhoun are exceptionally superficial. Nullification is a key issue in American political history, and framing the matter as "John C. Calhoun decided . . ." without even a suggestion of Calhoun's importance or the back-history of the issue should be unacceptable. The relative size of the slave population to the white population in the early 1800s should be treated in more depth. The discussion of the Indian Removal Act, requested in an earlier FAC, is too generic, and gives no substantial information about the impact on the state. There is no discussion of desegregation of primary and secondary public schools, which, according to one of the websites referenced in the article, was more contentious than the article indicates. The discussion of recent events is far too long for the relatively minor events actually reported, and should be more comprehensive. The last paragraph, devoted to a lunatic fringe group's self-proclaimed plans, without any reason to believe the plans will bear (bitter) fruit, takes up more space than "the state's mishandling of the Hurricane Floyd evacuation in 1999," an apparently substantial matter mentioned only in passing, or the Abbeville education lawsuit, an entirely ignored matter despite its great importance. In terms of details, I think that the article's description of a British military strategy in the American Revolution as a plan to land troops in (Spanish) Florida and march north to corner George Washington is . . . more than a little curious. The discussion of the Fort Sumter battle is longer and more detailed than the rest of the discussion of the Civil War and its impact on the state. I don't believe the problems with this article can be resolved in the FAC time frame, but require extensive attention.Monicasdude 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support thats stronge than Monicasdude's strong object. What an immature vote. However I haven't seen him support any state history articles FAC. I think its fine with things like the Fort Sumter being longer as that was probably the biggest part of SC in the Civil War. There were no really important battles there, were there? It should be the most important part. Anyways if I were to address every concern I'd probably make a three paragraph comment which would get so long no one would bother reading it... So I'll just sign now... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let this comment speak for itself, but I came across a profile of an novelist recently which makes the relevant point far better than I would have: "Kate [Wilhelm] wrote about her first [writers'] workshop experience: she turned in an ambitious story and had it shredded. The man sitting next to her turned in some trivial fluff and got gentle, kid-glove critiques. After the workshop drubbing, Kate went down to the nearby stream and threw rocks at the water as hard as she could, until she realized her fellow workshoppers treated her story firmly because they respected her and felt the story had potential." Monicasdude 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support! Great article. Long lead sections are good. Andre (talk) 18:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Object, while Monicasdude's comments seem a bit vociferous, the article does seem poorly balanced across time. For instance: one sentence for "Throughout the Colonial Period, the Carolinas participated in many wars against the Spanish and the Native Americans, particularly the Yamassee[2] and Cherokee tribes" and a full paragraph on disputes over video gambling. This problem exists because the first three periods of the history have been broken out to substantial subarticles while the later periods have not; breaking out a couple more subarticles for the later periods and culling some of the ephemera would fix this issue (and also bring the article closer to an ideal size). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

There is a bit of backstory here, spread out over several talk pages. Several members (not all, and not the self-nominator of the article) of an FAC-promoting wikiproject have made strong and disparaging replies to previous comments I made describing the faults of articles in general terms and calling for more extensive details. However, providing details produces an equally hostile response, as shown here. The underlying problem, as I see, comes from the relatively low standards the project applies to substantive FAC criteria, and the unwillingness of some members of the project to accept in practice the FAC guideline that proponents of a nomination are "expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The tone of such responses is quite unfortunate. Monicasdude 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the dispute over FAC criteria should carry dispute to this article. Deryc k C. 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well written and informative article. I was able to read this and learn things about a subject which, previously, I had no knowledge of. That, to my mind, is an indicator of what articles should be. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Support comprehensive. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stand by my original nomination of support. See the second nom (I think it is) for my reasons; they still stand true today. --JB Adder | Talk 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, the section on Desegregation is totally inadequate and misleading. To suggest that desegregation in South Carolina went smoothly, even in comparison to "hot spots" like Mississippi and Alabama, ignores the incredible efforts that South Carolina's white elites put in to their attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's order to end seperate but equal facilities--they were prepared to spend 75 million dollars "equalizing" facilities rather than desegregate and African Americans who led the movement in the State lost their jobs, were assaluted, had their homes destroyed and forced to flee SC for their lives. There is also no mention of Briggs v. Elliot, the case from Clarendon County that began the legal process that culminated in Brown v Board or of the fact that the majority of South Carolina's schools effectively remain segregated today. --Sjappleford 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Well written article. Per the opinions I stated in the previous nominations. Deryc k C. 08:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. First off, I still voice concerns about the references, since there are only 6 for the entire 43 kb article, and for that matter there are only 6 inline citations through the entire article. Second off, it is comprehensive, but by the point left by Monicasdude, the article is slightly too comprehensive in the wrong areas. A lot of that falls in the Recent Events section, which goes into a 5 paragraph summary of Hodges governorship, but stops abruptly upon reaching 2002. An addition, images and lead section should both be succint. And finally, the reference subsection under the Desegration part has to be fixed. AndyZ 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion of FAC archive errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]