Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Origin of the name "Empire State"/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [1].

Origin of the name "Empire State" edit

Origin of the name "Empire State" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): upstateNYer 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a concise article covering the history of the nickname of New York. Surprisingly, the history behind the name is unknown, being limited to rumor and conjecture. As such, the topic is not covered widely in books and other resources about New York State history. At the time of this nomination, I believe I have exhausted my resources for the name and covered the poorly documented topic well. upstateNYer 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is an article about etymology, so I was surprised it does not include the first documented use of the term (only claims that the term was well known at a particular time). The OED says the term was first used in 1834; Google Books gave me apparent uses in 1825, 1825, and 1820 (I'm cautious because many Google Books have incorrect publication dates; this one seems to be correct). The OED also cites uses of the term for other U.S. states, a theme this article does not cover. Ucucha 04:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually an article on toponymy, not etymology, but nevertheless I share your concerns Ucucha. I don't at all see this as a credible FA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor do I, but please note that the earliest OED citation does not amount to "The OED says the term was first used...", merely that this was the earliest use they were aware of, usually at some point back in the 1890s etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead must not contain references. TGilmour (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm afraid that I feel that the article is a long way from featured status at this time, and is much more suited to GA status. I strongly suspect that there are a number of sources out there that have not been plummed; the sources currently cited are, noticeably, all online. Admittedly, I know nothing about New York history, and so I am not in a position to point you towards books that may contain information, but there must be some, surely? In my head, I'm comparing this to "little known" academic topics that I am qualified to comment upon; an article on the Taylor-Warrender thesis (a controversy within scholarship on Thomas Hobbes), for instance, could not possibly survive on online sources only. A look at this or this may point you in the right direction. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it happens to be coincidence that Klein's book (and the pages I cite) is online. I actually wrote the article using the hard copy I have. Then I went to the Encyclopedia of New York State (also my hard copy). Klein wrote the article in there too. It was Klein's work that pointed me to the old Flick references, the first of which I make note of is not online. You'll note that Klein's book is a publication of the New York State Historical Society, which hasn't published a comprehensive state history since that book was published. I actually did all of the work on Bibliography of New York and quite frankly have read thousands of pages of New York history. This is a subject that almost nobody takes on other than a fleeting glance, which is why so little is known (and probably why it took almsot ten years for the article to be started in the first place). upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "universally known"? Absolutely not, particularly not with a single New York source and no in-text attribution
  • New York or New York City?
    • You'll note all references to New York City include the word 'city' upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide states for non-NYC locations
  • Ref 8: location should not be italicized.
  • Broadly agree with the source comprehensiveness issue raised by J Milburn. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I hate the citation style used in this article. I suggest using shortened footnotes. Template:sfn. TGilmour (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's unfortunate, but the citation style currently used is acceptable so long as it's consistently applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Only one issue. The source for File:Manhattan at Dusk by slonecker.jpg， which is currently "SXC #350175", needs to be clarified. If that refers to the image hosting/browsing/sale service SXC, then a link needs to be provided. If it dosen't refer to that, a more specific explanation of what "SXC #350175" is still needs to be furnished. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had an OTRS member confirm it. Please see updated file page. upstateNYer 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I really wanted was the SXC to be linked. The OTRS is even better though. I'd say images check out now. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Forgive me for being blunt, but why does wikipedia need an article for a nickname? That's what it is anyways, just a nickname, not a toponym, the toponym is New York. The content will of course be a duplication of the New York article content. It can be a Good Article, but according to wikipedia's policies, this is fork content. Please prove me wrong, because in my opinion, this article deserves a redirect more than a FA stamp.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll agree on notability and on the fact that the New York article would be too long, should this one redirect to it. But I insist that it should be treated as an etymological article and probably renamed to Origin of the name "Empire State", whereas Empire State should become a dab page.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems reasonable, and I support it. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that a large percentage the article is given over to the name's origin, I would second the above "Origin of the name "Empire State"", to fall in line with the Windy City article. I've also slightly abridged an image caption as it seemed to me to stretch onto too many lines, making a little more white space than looked right. Feel free to revert if the appearance before was preferred. GRAPPLE X 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I feel I could support this article given a few changes. Aside from the naming being discussed above, which seems to be a simple issue, I support this article. It's by no means extensive, but that in no way precludes it from being exhaustive. Obviously it's a narrow field but it appears to have been covered in well-written, well-researched detail, and would make an interesting addition to the Featured ranks. A few additions could be made, however—simply looking at the Empire State (disambiguation) page turns up a few other uses which could be at home in the Namesakes section, including the troop ship TS Empire State VI, which seems worth noting. Given the tone of the article, it would be understandable to refrain from mentioning 'pop culture' uses of the term, though there also exists the fictional Empire State University, should you wish to make passing reference to it. The state of Georgia is also nicknamed the "Empire State of the South", and commentary on this relationship may be worth a mention. Given that the article's size seems to be an issue for other commentators here, it would perhaps be best to look into adding some of this information. I would also quibble that the lead contains a quote by Eldridge not found in the body's text, and material in the lead not expanded in the article proper is generally to be avoided—however, this is perfectly understandable given how tiresome repetition within such limited space would seem. Perhaps paraphrase it in the lead and quote it properly in the article? GRAPPLE X 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It seems odd to me that the lead image is of George Washington. I am of the opinion that Curious George should be moved to History and an image of NYC be used for the lead.
  • "one credits aggressive trade routes, and another associates the nickname with New York exceeding Virginia in population." First, is it possible for a trade route to be "aggressive"? I'm not sure I even know what the adjective means in this context. Perhaps "extensive" or "centralized"...? Second, I'm thinking that both of these items would benefit from the inclusion of time frames, perhaps something along the lines of "one credits aggressive trade routes throughout the 19th century, and another associates the nickname with New York exceeding Virginia in population in the early 1800s."
  • "None have been proven true." This wrongly implies that it is even possible to prove such a theory true. Math has proofs. Science has data. History has consensus.
  • "It is often attributed to the state's wealth and resources,[2] but this is probably not the case." By whom is attributed as such? Why is this probably not the case?
  • Caption: "The Empire State Plaza (1965–1978)" What is the purpose of this date range? As far as I can tell, the plaza still exists and is commonly referred to by this name.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 14 July 2011 (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_candidates/Origin_of_the_name_%22Empire_State%22/archive1&oldid=1086103177"