Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Minnesota/archive1

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

The article was delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

History of Minnesota

[edit]
Notified: Elkman, Mcb133aco, Rjensen, WP Minnesota, WP US, WP US History, talk page notification 2020-12-06

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 FA that has fallen out of standard, mostly due to lack of updates. The list of issues on talk is a year old, and includes sourcing issues, MOS matters, datedness, lack of comprehensiveness, and some boosterism. The article has good bones, so it would be a pity for it to be delisted, and hopefully someone will address the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at 11,000 words of prose size (around 50% more than the version that passed FAC), there is a real need for some pruning and trimming of content to make better use of summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the FAR was opened, @Elkman: has added significant information to the 21st century section. Are you interested in improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in improving this article, though I'm unsure why nobody else is available to help out. I put in a large share of the work to get this to FA status back in 2007, but I'm far less active on Wikipedia these days than I was 15 years ago. That said, history doesn't stand still. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be fewer and fewer people to help everywhere :( Elkman, I am concerned that the new text you added needs to be much more tightly summarized. If you are able to chunk in missing text for comprehensiveness and replace the over-reliance on one book in politics, I will be better able to help on some of the other little stuff. But right now, we're too far away for me to know where to start to help. The article was under 8,000 words of prose when it passed FAC, and is now over 11,000; several areas are excessively detailed. If you can get it below 9, while adding missing areas (eg immigration), I can take a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enormous portions of this article are uncited; there is too much to tag. Some of the uncited boosterism should never have passed FAC even in 2007; I am unsure this article can be salvaged. It also needs serious trimming everywhere. Page numbers are missing on books. A section on Lynchings and executions was plopped into the middle of the article. Everywhere I look, there are considerable problems. It would take a considerable effort from multiple editors to rewrite this to FA standards. The mainstay of Minnesota's economy is farming, and yet the lead claimed banking and computers since 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed what bloat I can, but the article is still 10,000 words, and is not comprehensive. There is still excess boosterism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting for duty, sorry to be late. I'm willing to help but will need a couple days to understand the problem. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree some wording (that you call excess boosterism) added since 2007 is over the top, nevertheless it could be true that Minnesota was the center of the universe in computer hardware (as opposed to software) for a while. Didn't Seymour Cray build the world's first supercomputer with business headquarters in Minnesota? I have less time for this review starting Monday but will have access to two books that might back this up.

SandyGeorgia, thank you for questioning MNopedia. I have no problems with their scholarship but failed to get them to cite their work back in 2013. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming concerned about the amount of text deleted; is there a plan to rebuild some from newer and better sources? I haven't followed closely, but the edit summary "Civil War omitted" caught my attention.
There are several books on Minnesota History; are they being consulted in terms of establishing due weight? I see MNopedia (not a source that should be used at the FA level) is now used seven times, and I don't think this article can be considered FA-level without consulting these newer sources (since the last FA)--an FA on history cannot be built by consulting internet sources:
  • Wingerd, Mary Lethert. North Country: The Making of Minnesota (University of Minnesota Press, 2010).
  • Hatle, Elizabeth Dorsey. The Ku Klux Klan in Minnesota (The History Press, 2013).
  • Radzilowski, John. Minnesota (Interlink Books, 2006), story of ethnic groups (for the missing parts on immigration, which is not covered at all in the article)
I also question a stand-alone section on "Lynchings and executions". I believe both are WP:UNDUE here. If executions are DUE here, they might be part of a Legal section, and I believe the lynchings more appropriately belong at Duluth. If they do belong here, perhaps a section on race, but the current "Lynchings and executions" section looks like somebody wanted to park some UNDUE information somewhere, without consideration for article structure (which now needs re-thinking).
Also, there is MOS:SANDWICHing in the Technology section; I suggest that both of those images should be removed (Honeywell is no longer in MN and the thermostat image is purely decorative, while the CDC 6600 hardly seems worth mention.
The article is improving, but I'm not sure it's moving yet in the direction of featured quality. Without consulting books, it won't make it. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
And I just noticed Somalis in Minnesota. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somalis and immigration updated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A more minor concern, but I'm surprised that the 1st Minnesota Infantry Regiment isn't mentioned at all in the Civil War section, given that it's service at Gettysburg is basically legendary. The Dakota War should get most of the focus on the section, as it was more important to Minnesota specifically, but it should be mentioned that units fought in the actions against the Confederates further east, and the 1st MN Infantry mentioned by name. Hog Farm Talk 14:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work continues.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, the last comment is done (sentence expanded per the source). I hope somebody else can tackle re-organization. Elkman is this something you could do? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SusanLesch: - Personally, I prefer the more detailed listing here. Maybe something like "By the end of the war, Minnesota had raised 11 regiments of infantry, two sharpshooter units, and some cavalry and artillery" And then give the 24,000+ figure and the losses from Wingerd? Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hog Farm. If you want to tighten the focus, why don't you make that section look as you'd like it? Take another paragraph if need be. (To clarify my note from yesterday: there's no free online source for Wingerd.) Best wishes, -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Wingerd, but did what I could. Why does MNHS say 11 regiments, while Wingerd says 12? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Wingerd is counting a non-infantry regiment as the 12th one - possibly the 1st Minnesota Heavy Artillery Regiment. (the two cavalry regiments appear to have mainly been involved in the Dakota War) The 11 v 12 may not be an apples to apples comparison. Hog Farm Talk 02:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have restructured and worked back in to the appropriate place the older info on Lynchings and hangings. SusanLesch are you planning further writing? When you are close to finished, I will start examining sources and prose. Please let me know. After that, the lead will need to be re-worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Further reading needs to be trimmed. SusanLesch would you mind if I convert the book sources to sfns while I'm copyediting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SandyGeorgia. Yes, I am almost done writing except in the new Civil rights section, now revised. MN was first state to give black men the vote but is the site of George Floyd's murder, a paradox of liberalism and prejudice. William Green's book is my source for that thread that runs through history. (The history of Floyd and Chauvin isn't written yet but I daresay a related photo could be in the lead here instead of the fort.) I didn't realize how neat those sfn templates are, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC) One question. Should this article do "black" and "white" or "Black" and "White," lower case or capitalized? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch I need an answer before changing WP:CITEVAR; may I switch to sfns? The ref tags are much harder to work with. Also, I can't tell what "relied on computing technology born in the state and four Nobel laureates in economics from the University of Minnesota" means; could you rephrase or provide a quote from the source? What did the four Nobel laureates contribute? I am not up on upper vs. lower case for race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SandyGeorgia. Yes go with sfns. There's no free preview for Misa p.201. I'll copy out the paragraph in a minute. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch Thanks. To convert to sfns, I will need to put the article in use for several hours; may I do that now ? You will have to avoid editing so we don't get edit conflicts. Please let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia it's all yours. Thank you very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going in ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping there's enough here to formulate a sentence. From Misa pp. 200–201. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Even today the U.S. federal government continues to be a significant player in the market for military-oriented systems integration. Many of the promotional activities, and a great deal of the market stimulus for computing can be traced to specific local instances of state activity, as this section outlines, including the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota, and then (in the following sections) several innovative networks of computer users organized into the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, as well as the varied efforts, over two decades, to bring a statewide Internet network to Minnesota. These demand-side actors were no less important than the computer manufacturers themselves in making Minnesota a digital state. [skip a lot]

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis also developed unusually close relations with the University of Minnesota's data-driven economics department. Among many other prominent faculty, Walter Heller was a key economic adviser during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and he subsequently build the department into one of national prominence. Economics, of course, was one of the earliest of the social sciences to enthusiastically adopt mathematics, statistics, data processing, and computing. Heller connected economics professors at the university with researchers at the Minneapolis Fed in the 1970s. He hired up-and-coming stars from the best universities around the country, enticing them with the promise of direct interaction with the data-rich Minneapolis Fed. By far the most important result of the university-Fed collaboration was its significant contributions to the currently dominant "rational expectations" school of data-driven macroeconomics. Among this notable group were Neil Wallace, Thomas J. Sargent, Christopher A. Sims, and Edward C. Prescott. Prescott, who won a Nobel Prize for related work in 2004 (as did Sargent and Sims in 2011), taught at the university for nearly a quarter-century, and today continues work at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Heller also hired Leonid Hurwicz, yet another economics Nobel laureate, who taught at the university for fifty-five years. His Nobel-cited specialty was in "mechanism design," or the devising of effective practical mechanisms to deal with imperfect markets. Ordinarily, one doesn't expect to find applications of Nobel Prizes directly in daily life, but Hurwicz, a lifelong politically active member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, invented the "walking subcaucus" used by Minnesotans to nominate candidates. It is difficult to imagine this churn of economics--including four Nobel laureates--occurring in Minnesota if the upper Midwest Federal Reserve had been located anywhere else...."

I will look at that soon. I finished most of the sfn converts, and established a consistent style: italics on hard print sources, sentence case for all but book titles, and repeat last two digits on page ranges. I did not finish cleaning up the web sources in the top sections of the article; back hurts, will resume later.
I did flag a number of missing pages, failed verifications, and non-reliable sources that will need to be addressed before I start to look at prose. Tired for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minus all four Nobel laureates. Found a second reliable source, but lines can't be clearly drawn. Apologies. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that's done; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust anything cited to TimePieces; it should all be reviewed and re-sourced to either the underlying literature given by the MNHS, or preferably, to newer sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing here is rather a mess; there has been a very lax approach to source-to-text integrity. The appearance is that, at some point, people just wrote whatever they wanted to write and later stuck a source on it that sorta/kinda/maybe matched. Unless someone plans to undertake a line-by-line check and repair of all of the old sourcing, we should let this FA go. I have cleaned up a great deal, but do not intend to do the amount of work needed to salvage this star. Everything I check in the older parts fails verification and turns into a can of worms. SusanLesch as you are the only editor working towards saving this star, it may be up to you to decide if you are willing to take on the task of checking line-by-line and re-sourcing/re-writing as much as needed. The sourcing is not to a place such that it is worthwhile to begin copyediting, and there are still considerable copyedit needs. After a full day of working on this article, replacing and rewriting what I could, and having checked a miniscule amount of the sources, there are nonetheless 2 non-reliable sources remaining, 9 failed verification tags (so far), 13 page needed tags, and 6 citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Agreed, it is time to let this star go. Sorry we didn't decide that before your marathon yesterday. I learned something (that sfns make links). The missing sources are in areas I've never looked into so am not able to help. I suggest we notify WP:MINN before closing this out. Thank you for your help and hard work! -SusanLesch (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All WikiProjects were already notified, but I will add another note there. Thanks so much for all your work. At least the article is considerably improved for our efforts, even if it loses the star. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/History_of_Minnesota/archive1&oldid=1078723011"