Wikipedia:Peer review/Toledo War/archive1
A number of folks, including members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan, have been working on this article with a goal of Featured Article candidacy. Any comments, suggestions or criticisms are welcome. Jtmichcock 22:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good, a couple of very minor issues should be taken care of.
- See WP:MOS#Headings for heading guidelines; headings should avoid starting with the word "The" and avoid the capitalization of words outside of the first one and proper nouns.
- Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space ( ) between numbers and their units of measures. Source units should be spelled out in text
- Trivia sections are generally looked down upon as being un-encyclopediac. I suggest that the section is removed, and any important information is incorporated into the rest of the article.
- Image:John Scott Horner.jpg, Image:Stevens T Mason.png need proper image license tags
- Image:Robert lucas.jpg needs a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC)
- Thanks, AndyZ t 23:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have made the corrections per your points.
- I have renamed the sections in part to delete the capitalizations and avoid articles at the beginning. I forgot about the caps rule when it came to the headers.
- The numbers have been spelled out.
- I have merged the trivia sections into the main text where they appeared appropriate. The "wolverine" reference has been moved to the section on Philips Corner where the name originated. The part on the current map and the street jogs as well as the football rivalry have been inserted into aftermath. I removed the trivia about Robert E. Lee and Schleshinger as being too. . .trivial.
- I updated the photos with current tags and have replaced the one phot of Lucas with another from the National Archives, circa 1938.
- Thanks for your input. Let us know if there's any further fixes. Jtmichcock 00:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent article. Looks ready for FAC to me. Only thing is I don't think you can justify the UM-OSU bit as being important enough to this specific topic to include it, unless there is some evidence it is an extension of the conflict. See what others think. - Taxman Talk 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was on the fence about the football rivalry too, but it is one of the remnants from that conflict that has carried on to present day. From that perspective, it does offer a reader a sense that Ohio and Michigan were rivals before college football (and the game was not sui generis). Jtmichcock 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to make the mention of this "war" in the rivalry article justified, but not necessarily vice versa. It's hard to substantiate it really is a remnant of this conflict. If you could somehow, I wouldn't be against including it, but it seems like it would need something directly supporting that sentiment. - Taxman Talk 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I definitely see what you mean, and I wouldn't be against taking that information out. But, even as it currently stands, after re-reading, the article refers specifically to "the conflict between the two states", and that could be considered by some to actually refer to the "war" itself. Also, having an entire paragraph devoted to it may be a bit much in hindsight. Would something such as "In modern times, the tension between Michigan and Ohio is still strong, but it is mostly on a playing field, where the rivalry between the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University is considered to be one of the greatest in all of sport." fit the article better? Hotstreets 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to revise the text per this suggestion. Ohio/Michigan football is probably a whole article in itself. Jtmichcock 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I definitely see what you mean, and I wouldn't be against taking that information out. But, even as it currently stands, after re-reading, the article refers specifically to "the conflict between the two states", and that could be considered by some to actually refer to the "war" itself. Also, having an entire paragraph devoted to it may be a bit much in hindsight. Would something such as "In modern times, the tension between Michigan and Ohio is still strong, but it is mostly on a playing field, where the rivalry between the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University is considered to be one of the greatest in all of sport." fit the article better? Hotstreets 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to make the mention of this "war" in the rivalry article justified, but not necessarily vice versa. It's hard to substantiate it really is a remnant of this conflict. If you could somehow, I wouldn't be against including it, but it seems like it would need something directly supporting that sentiment. - Taxman Talk 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I very nearly removed all reference to the OSU-UM rivalry in one of my edits. The footnote cites Emmanuel's book and his contention about "unfulfilled bloodlust" etc. This is almost certainly conjectural hype--OSU-UM didn't even start until 60+ years after the "war". Unless someone can verify that Emmanuel--or anyone else--can back up his statement with real evidence, then we are admitting conjecture into the article. Jeeb 04:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The statement is not presented as anything but conjecture. Jtmichcock 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- As it currently stands, this statement is out of place. Before we submit this to FAC, I think this needs to either be moved to a later paragraph or deleted. It currently concludes the paragraph about Willis and Ferris shaking hands at the border. I'm actually leaning towards deletion at this point, because it has become a stub of sorts. Hotstreets 17:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, the speculation is reserved to a footnote and I believe the reader would get a different spin on the football game's significance. Jtmichcock 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, could it be left in but moved to the final (or next to last) paragraph? Even as a footnote, it's kind of out of place and "tacked on" as it is, in my opinion. Hotstreets 20:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the theory that it's easier to delete stuff than to write it, let's see if FAC has any objections to inclusion. If there is a consensus for removal, then it will get pulled. Ready to go? Jtmichcock 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I will get the process started. Another new experience, and thanks for the help everybody! Hotstreets 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the theory that it's easier to delete stuff than to write it, let's see if FAC has any objections to inclusion. If there is a consensus for removal, then it will get pulled. Ready to go? Jtmichcock 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, could it be left in but moved to the final (or next to last) paragraph? Even as a footnote, it's kind of out of place and "tacked on" as it is, in my opinion. Hotstreets 20:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, the speculation is reserved to a footnote and I believe the reader would get a different spin on the football game's significance. Jtmichcock 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I very nearly removed all reference to the OSU-UM rivalry in one of my edits. The footnote cites Emmanuel's book and his contention about "unfulfilled bloodlust" etc. This is almost certainly conjectural hype--OSU-UM didn't even start until 60+ years after the "war". Unless someone can verify that Emmanuel--or anyone else--can back up his statement with real evidence, then we are admitting conjecture into the article. Jeeb 04:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)