Talk:Pennsylvania/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Conversion of Pounds to Dollars

The amount owed to the Penns is $5.1M in today's dollars, not $20M. Using http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk, in 2007, £20,000 from 1681 is worth £2,562,925 using the retail price index. Using http://www.xe.net, £2,562,925 is worth $5,112,047 using the present exchange rate. The $20 million figure is not even close. In addition, it is not footnoted, nor is it supported by any online sources. Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.218.121 (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia?

whatever <3; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.193.53 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC) There is a bit of schizophrenia not unique to Pennsylvania regarding its past history as a colony. That political entity was known as the "Province of Pennsylvania", was "Category:Former British Colony" and has it's own individual entry and history. The other Pennsylvania was the State which superceded the Province once the state revolted. It's history starts in 1776 or thereabouts. It was never a British Colony, that was the point. Right now there are two parallel Pennsylvania articles, one of which correctly starts in the 1600s and stops at 1776, but may grant topics to the state during that time for some reason. The other also starts in 1600s and has colonial pretensions. The editors either need to get together or agree where the split is. PS most of the colonies have the same problem.Student7 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should and how could Pennsylvania be both a State and a Commonwealth? If it is a Commonweatlh, shouldn't a star be taken off of the American Flag, considering they represent each STATE? If it is in fact a State, then the article should discuss or call into question this error that the writers of the Pennsylvania Constitution made. I am aware this condition exists with other STATES. 須藤 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, a state can call itself whatever it wants to. If Pennsylvania wanted to call itself "The Republic of Pennsylvania," it could. There is no requirement that a state refer to itself as a state -- its official title does not change its legal status. A state by any other name (even a commonwealth) is still a state. "Country" Bushrod Washington 05:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Other uses tag

The other uses tag states "This article is about the U.S. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." Shouldn't this say "US State of Pennsylvania"? It is a US State which uses the word Commonwealth in its official name. Using Commonwealth in the other uses tag seems to imply that it is different from all the other states. Archons (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review

I'd say this article now meets GA criteria, it's got plenty of references now and is greatly improved over the state it was in when it was rightly delisted. Krimpet (talk/review) 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "Pennsylvania"

I have always read that the name Pennsylvania comes from Penn (for William Penn or his father Admiral Penn) plus Sylvania, Latin for woods, hence Penn's Woods. However, User:WLRoss brought this source to my attention:

This letter from William Penn to Robert Turner is possibly the original source .... From this it seems that the King thought it was named after Penn's father in error. I’ll leave that up to you if you prefer:

"This day, my country was confirmed to me under the great seal of England, with privileges, by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the King would give it in honour of my father. I chose New Wales, being as this, a pretty, hilly country, but Penn being Welsh for head as in Penman moire, in Wales, and Penrith, in Cumberland, and Penn, in Buckinghamshire, called this Pennsylvania, which is the high or head woodlands; for I proposed, when the secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New Wales, Sylvania and they added Penn to it, and though I opposed it and went to the King to have it struck out and altered he said it was past, nor could twenty guineas move the under-secretary to vary the name.” (from here).

Any thoughts on how to put the two differing etymologies into the article? Also does anyone have a good "Penns Woods" source? Ruhrfisch 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the original letter dated March 5, 1681:

"...this day my country was confirmed to me under the Great Seal of England with large powers and privileges, by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the King would give it in honor to my father. I chose New-Wales, being as this a pretty hilly country, but Penn being Welsh for a head, as Penmaenmawr in Wales and Penrith in Cumberland and Penn in Buckinghamshire, the highest land in England, called this Pennsylvania which is the high or head woodlands. For I proposed, when the secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New-Wales, Sylvania, and they added Penn to it; and though I much opposed it and went to the King to have it struck out and altered, he said it was passed and he would take it upon him. Nor could twenty guineas move the undersecretaries to vary the name, for I feared lest it should be looked on as a vanity to me and not as a respect in the King, as it truly was, to my father whom he often mentions with praise."

I've checked various sources including a book on the history of Bucks county written in 1876 that contains the letter and uses it as the source of the etymology although the book interprets it differently:

"When it became necessary to give a name to the county covered by the grant, Penn chose New Wales, but the king objected. Penn then suggested "Sylvania," to which the king prefixed the word "Penn," in honor of his father, and thus the country was given the name it bears - Pennsylvania, which means the high or head wood-lands".

The various sources have this minor difference depending on whether it is from a British or American viewpoint. British sources say Penn's secretary added Penn to Sylvania. American sources say Sylvania was submitted and the King himself added Penn to it. All are in agreance that Penn genuinely tried to change it back to Sylvania. The letter itself is unclear on who the "they" is that added Penn and it's possible it is singular rather than the plural meaning we use today. It's probable that the secretary was actually the Kings secretary because Penn was still in England when the letter was written but many sources (British) say it was Penn's. History is rarely clearcut.

This website http://www.mapsofpa.com/home.htm looks like a good reference site, is factually NPOV and also has the name explanation on the "introduction" page without making any particular claim.

It is clear the name was not Penn's choice, is is clear the King thought it was in honour of Penns father and it is also reasonably clear it was actually intended that Penn be used to mean "high" although it is also possible it is a sort of pun by the secretary. Perhaps explain that it is debated whether it was the King or the secretary who added Penn to Sylvania although i would have no problem if it was only attributed to the King as it is only a minor point in the etymology. Wayne 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The story of the naming is told in some detail in the book Names on the Land, by George R. Stewart. The tale involves some of the stuff mentioned above, and then some. The gist of it is that William Penn and Charles II undoubtedly respected one another, but held very different views. One difference was that while it was quite common for new place names coming from a royal charter to honor some person, perhaps the king. But a tenet of the Quakerism that Penn held to essentially forbid honoring a person in this way. Penn presented a draft charter to the King's secretary. As with the earlier Maryland charter the place where the name would go was left blank, "to be arranged between the Crown and the proprietor". Penn's first suggested was "New Wales", because "the lands were said to be hilly". The secretary refused to accept this name (for unknown reasons, maybe he didn't like Quakers, or Wales, who knows). So Penn suggested "Sylvania", because the land was forested. The story is apparently unclear in part, but it seems that the secretary took the charter with this name to King Charles II, who seems to have decided to play a rather lame joke on Penn. He approved the charter, but when it was returned to Penn the name had been written as "Pennsylvania". In other words, while Penn would not think it fit to honor even a king with a new place name, the king decided to honor Penn himself. Funny, no? Well, not very. Penn was shocked and appalled and demanded to see the king. They met and Penn tried his best to get the name changed, to no avail. But Charles "gave a hole for escape by saying that the name was really in honor of Penn's father." Penn was still unsatisfied. He offered an undersecretary some money to alter the name, but no luck. Then Penn wrote the letter mentioned above, saying not only that it was his father who was honored, but that "pen" in Welsh means "high", so Pensylvania could mean "high forest" or something like that. I don't think the joke aspect of the story can be proven, but it makes some sense and is a good story. This book wraps the topic up by saying that even if Penn didn't like it, most people would agree that Pennsylvania is a much better name than New Wales. Pfly (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have the ISBN, publisher etc. so we could cite the book in the article? Also have to come up with a brief summary of the above discussion. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- I'll try to add it in myself when I get a chance. If nothing else, if I flake, the book's info is on my user page (there is no ISBN I can find, maybe because it's an older book). But I've made a note to try to get to it! Pfly (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No hurry, I saw this when you posted and was busy and forgot to reply until you posted on a different topic below. Sorry to be slow and thanks for the clearer story and source, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Important cities and municipalities

In the Important cities and municipalities section, or somewhere within the state page, someone really needs to offer an explanations about the differences of cities, boroughs, towns, and townships, even if the differences are minimal. For instance, I'm from Michigan, we don't have boroughs, so I don't know how they function. We have villages, cities, and townships for municipal divisions. --71.206.107.202 09:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the link to point to Borough_(United_States)#Pennsylvania which has a good description (and points to the useless Borough_(Pennsylvania) article). 71.254.119.176 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the historical section referring to the establishment of the state line between Pennsylvania and Delaware, there is a statement saying that Chester County was created on the Pennsylvania side. That is technically accurate, but a sentence or two should be added that says: "The original Chester County was later partitioned into two counties, today's Delaware County and Chester County. The city of Chester is now located in Delaware County." Unfortunately I can't provide a reference for this at this moment. But having grown up in Delaware County, and having read many books ands articles on local history, I am sure it is true. There is a very large, thick history of Delaware county written in the 19th or early 20th century, but the name of its author escapes me. But that book may be a good reference for my suggested edit. If anyone else remembers the name of that large, definitive history (or any other good reference for my suggested edit), please provide. PS, this is my very first attempt to add to or edit Wikipedia, so I apologize upfront if I've broken any Wikiquette here! LRJordan (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ostentatious frippery"?

Penn knew of the hostility[5] Quakers faced when they opposed rituals, oaths, violence, and ostentatious frippery.

I want to reword "ostentatious frippery" to something people can actually understand, but I'm not sure what's meant by it in the first place. Some definitions I found online were "showy, elaborate clothing", "pretentious elegance," and "something trivial or nonessential". I have to wonder if it wouldn't be better just to delete it... Does anyone have an idea as to what is meant? Kennard2 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretentiously elegant dress would be pretty close, but I kinda like ostentatious frippery as a nice contemptuously accurate description. You clearly understood the phrase from the context. Why dumb it down and prevent the next reader from learning a useful new phrase? My opinion only, of course. alteripse 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase ostentatious frippery does mean overly elaborate clothing. It also connotes superiority of the quakers belief in simplicity. I do not think it would be "dumb[ing] down" an encyclopedia to be a bit more neutral. The sentence could read "Penn knew of the hostility[5] Quakers faced when they opposed rituals, oaths, violence, and what they viewed as ostentatious frippery.[6]" Four simple words can keep the phrase and maintain neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djp27 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I enjoyed running into a word I was not familiar with, and being able to click the word itself and immediately read the definition. I think that is a worthwhile aspect of Wikipedia in general. Before the internet, if a reader ran into an unfamiliar word in a newspaper, book, magazine, etc., the reader had to get up and go find their dictionary and look it up. The internet's (& in this case, Wikipedia's) advantage is that looking up the definition of unfamiliar words can be done almost instantly. LRJordan (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Education?

Is not Education an important and worthy aspect of Pennsylvania? All other states have a section devoted to it. Please at least mention Penn for crying out loud. It's an important American institution.--Zereshk 06:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I second this, it should be brought up to attention once more. User:Vanisheduser12a67 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Franklin and Colonial Scrip

The article says that Ben Franklin had a hand in the creation of the provincial currency, Colonial Scrip - but he would have been only around 17 when it was introduced. Would it not be more accurate to say that he successfully campaigned for its general acceptance? Jimgawn 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

17th Largest Economy

As of 2005 the state has the 17th largest economy in the world.

I read the source and sure enough, that's what it says. But it is unclear. Does it mean that among nations PA would be, if it was a nation, the 17th largest? Or does it include, say, provinces of China? What about other US states? I'd guess it's just comparing PA to other nations only, but without a unit of comparison the statement is a bit vague and meaningless, no? It would be nice to add "...among nations" to the statement, but the source doesn't say that. Unclear... anyone have more info? Pfly (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP. The sentence confused me when I first read it, too. I've it the opening paragraph. It doesn't belong there. It is mentioned again in the "economy" section, which is fine. Sam Staton (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

History

Nothing on when the Colony was first settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.31.185 (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the History section? If you can't find what you want there, try the main article linked to at the start of the History section, History of Pennsylvania. Pfly (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Estamate population of pennsylvania!!

The estamate population for pennsylvania is 13,123,479

Thanks and ha! to austin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.246.208.76 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

James Buchanon was NOT the only bachelor president

Martin Van Buren was single during his first term. His wife died before he went into office. It just annoyed me to see that since that's something you specifically learn in high school US History. --Yeahjesse (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that a bachelor is one whom has never married, as opposed to van Buren: a widower. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Triple A team

The Phillies Babeball triple A team is moving to Allentown from Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, not Canada. Also, Scranton/Wilkes-barre is now home to the New York Yankees Triple A team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.235.214 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Try This

Pennsylvania state map outlines.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.131.86 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject-Verb Agreement

 In the transportation section the sentence reading "There is 134 public-use airports and 

6 international airports" should be changed to "There are 134 public-use airports and 6 international airports", following subject-verb agreement rules. Pencilsforall (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Red brick capital

I saw a picture somewhere of the red brick capital after it burned down. I forget where, but I am just informing. --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortune 500 info out-of-date

I cannot update the article because I am not an established user. Updating for the 2008 Fortune 500 list, the economy section should read:

Philadelphia is home to seven Fortune 500 companies,[46] with more located in suburbs like King of Prussia; it's a leader in the financial[47] and insurance industry.[48] Pittsburgh is home to six Fortune 500 companies, including U.S. Steel, PPG Industries, and H.J. Heinz.[46] In all, Pennsylvania is home to twenty-five Fortune 500 companies.[46]

There is one less Fortune 500 company in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. I've also changed the paragraph to reflect that Alcoa executive HQ was moved from Pittsburgh to NYC in 2006. The claim that PA had "fifty Fortune 500" companies was always false; that was the number of [Fortune 1000] companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.235.67 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Geography: Cresap's war

As curious as this little anecdote is, it has no bearing on the geography of the commonwealth/state. It is historical and relates to the Province of Pennsylvania, having been completely resolved prior to statehood. Further, there are at least three other territorial conflicts that affected where the boundaries of the state are, or were 'supposed to be', and naming just this one crates a geographical bias. As it is now, there is more information given regarding this 'supposed to be' boundary in the south that ceased to be relevant two centuries ago than the actual boundaries in the north, west and east. I guess if you want to go into all of the disputes that led to the final boundaries of the state - the conflicting claims involving New York, Connecticut, Virginia and the Federal Government, in addition to that with Maryland, it would at least have balance, but as it is, this Cresap's War bit is just trivia. Agricolae (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lt.Gov Scarnati, an elected official?

In the government section it mentions the Lt.Gov. as being "an elected official who heads the executive branch", when he was never elected to the Legislative branch, but rather succeeded Catherine Baker Knoll on her death.PonileExpress (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

While he was not elected Lt. Gov., he was elected to the state senate and his fellow senators elected him President pro tem of the senate. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

first coining

pennsylvania had the first u.s. mint for printing and coining money also bloody marry aregenated in pennsylvania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.54.46 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Link broken

Link 78 is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.75.145 (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it. GreenGourd (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support – Thank you for fixing the link, we wouldn't want to lose Slinky! ~ All is One ~ (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

whats new

what new in Pennsylvania of there history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.137.231 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What William Penn "knew"

RE:

"He knew of the hostility[10] Quakers faced when they opposed religious ritual, taking oaths, violence, war and military service, and what they viewed as ostentatious frippery.[11]

Can anyone think of a better way of phrasing this other than claiming what Penn "knew" (it's mind reading of someone we never met). I don't see anything in the referenced sources that directly refers to how he "knows" this, but I may not have read it carefully enough. If sourced from his writings, one example of an alternative might be "He wrote of the hostility Quakers faced...". This would be more factual than referring to what a deceased notable "knew" (i.e. when did he "know" this? how would we know if he ever forgot it?")Royal Lion (talk)

Religion

I do not think the demographics on the state's religions are correct. Roman Catholic: 3,802,524 (53.43%), is too high. It is in line with the reference, but I do not think that the study referenced was attempting to determine the percentages for the whole state. These were the percentages in the study. If someone can find the information from the last census, it would be more accurate for the state as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfdavis668 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Population Growth in the Lower Susquehanna Valley

The following statement can be found under Demographics. It reads: "A rapid growth in population is occurring in the Lower Susquehanna Valley of Pennsylvania . . . Most residents are natives of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia or have jobs in those cities."

I question the accuracy of this statement. Certainly folks in that area may commute to Philadelphia or Baltimore, but to Pittsburgh? That's quite a long drive. Does anyone have any facts to back this up? "Country" Bushrod Washington (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations need to be fixed

The citation number is off by one in the sources section.

Also the link to voltaire's quote citation 56 link 57 need to be updated since they no longer point to the correct page at that site. The url for the correct page is http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=666&layout=html#chapter_81907

I can't seem to be able to fix this citation problems. Can anyone else do so? GeneralChoomin (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sports

In the motorsports it lists nazareth as a notable racetrack it should also mention that it closed in 2004 or be taken out completely for it will never open again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.9.74 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Industries

ship building and shipping goods —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.189.105 (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This is in pretty good shape, but it needs some work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am outliniing a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs), ClairSamoht (talk · contribs), Thisisbossi (talk · contribs), PAWiki (talk · contribs), Boothy443 (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisted largely for uncited content and problematic references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• According to the alt text checker this article needs WP:ALT text. (Not required to retain GA status, but it is becoming common in articles)
• According to the dablink checker this article has eight dablinks that need to be addressed.
• According to the link checker this article has eleven deadlinks.
• Several refs appear in the middle of sentences. Please make sure all refs follow punctuation marks.
• Please reformat to either expand or merge one line paragraphs such as "Pennsylvania has 51 miles (82 km)[12] of coastline along Lake Erie and 57 miles (92 km)[13] of shoreline along the Delaware Estuary.", "Pennsylvania became the second state to ratify the U.S. Constitution on December 12, 1787,[45] five days after Delaware became the first." and "The Peace of Breda between England, France and the Netherlands confirmed the English conquest on July 21, 1667,[28][29] although there were temporary reversions."
• The article has many bare refs used in footnotes. Please reformat as proper full inline citations.
• Other bare refs in the article text such as those at Pennsylvania#Climate should be reformated as inline citations.
• Please read WP:CAPTION#Wording as it relates to the use of periods.
• Several image files no longer exist.

I will likely add other issues as I see that these are being worked on. I will reevaluate this article after one week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dab links have all been fixed, and the links to image files that no loinger exist have been removed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do ref links have to be at the end of sentences or following punctuation marks? I don't recall seeing anything about that in the MoS, and I've seen plenty of instances where refs have been in the middle of sentences without punctuation. GlassCobra 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a misunderstanding; refs do not have to be at the end of sentences or following punctuation, but when they are at the end of sentences or combined with punctuation, then they follow the punctuation, except for emdashes, which they precede. See WP:FN, specifically, WP:REFPUNC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:PAIC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Thanks for clearing it up. GlassCobra 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See also [1], especially the bit that says "Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation" (my emphasis)--Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

• Several of the points raised by the reviewer above are irrelevant to the good article criteria and ought to be struck, except for recommendations should the article ever be put forward at FAC. Not only is no particular citation style mandated (citations before or after punctuation, citations mid-sentence, etc.), but there is no requirement for alt text. Neither are the presence or absence of dab links part of the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • They should not be struck unless the article has been improved accordingly. Those are my suggestions to improve the article. Fixing each of the concerns would improve the article, except the newly discovered allowance for randomly-placed citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a GA review, and the review ought to be consistent with the GA criteria, which your review is not. GA Sweeps isn't an opportunity for you to force your own personal preferences on other editors. If you find yourself unable to assess this article against the GA criteria then I suggest that you close this review and let it be done by someone who can. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes there is no alt text requirement in WP:WIAGA, but unless you have a problem with me making WP accessible to the blind, I will continue to request it be added to articles if it is not too much trouble. I will also continue to request dablink cleanup. This is my 50th GA Sweeps. SInce 50 is a round number, it will be my last.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I have a problem with you assessing articles against your own personal criteria instead of against the GA criteria. If you believe that the GA criteria ought to be changed to accommodate your personal preferences then I suggest that you try and make your case at WT:GAN. Until then, I am greatly relieved to hear that this will be your last GA Sweeps review if this is typical of your work. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Are there instructions somewhere that limit GA Sweeps suggestions to those directly related to WP:WIAGA?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
            • What does this look like to you? "This is in pretty good shape, but it needs some work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am outliniing a partial list of issues that need to be addressed.". That says need to be addressed. You're perfectly at liberty to suggest whatever improvements you like, but not to make demands that go beyond the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
              • In truth nothing needs to be addressed. Several things could be addressed to bring the article more in line with WP:WIAGA and other things could be addressed to bring the article up to a higher quality standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As an uninvolved user, I strongly suggest passing the GA sweeps, which pertains only to items relevant to the GA criteria, and requesting the other things in a normal thread on the talk page. Most editors will have the courtesy to strive to at least respond to those requests. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• This article does not pass GA Sweeps even isolating WIAGA criteria like the lack of refs and abundant deadlinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • P.S. of the other 47 completed and 2 active GA Sweeps reviews I have done no one has put up a fuss about doing ALT:Text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Nobody's making a fuss about doing alt text here either. The fuss has been caused by you insisting on alt text, among other things, for this article to keep its GA listing, things that are not part of the GA criteria, like the positioning of citations before/after punctuation. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Due to the extensive imagery in this article I have made it clear that alt text is not required to retain GA status. I admit, I had been previously misinformed about the location of refs. However, a look at the footnotes at the bottom shows that the majority of the refs are incomplete or bare refs. Also many things are uncited. This will cause Sweeps delisting if not resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Fine. And that would be a delisting for the right reasons, not meeting the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Glad to see we are agreeing here now. The lack of references in sections is definitely a legitimate GA concern. With regard to the ref formatting, reflinks is a tool that can help out somewhat. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)