Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Territorial evolution of the United States/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Territorial evolution of the United States

Territorial evolution of the United States

edit
Previous peer review • Next peer review page
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This is a complete, 100%, wholesale rewrite of Territorial evolution of the United States. It's been tirelessly researched by me, User:Jeff in CA, User:Bkonrad, User:XavierGreen, and many others, and I think it's finally ready for prime time. But since it's such a huge change, I wanted to immediately bring it to PR in case there were issues that leap out at people; after all, I've been working on this thing for a year, it's impossible for me to have an outside perspective, so something that makes perfect sense to me might make perfect sense only to me.

Thanks, Golbez (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC) also just noticed I'm making this PR exactly 29 days short of 10 years since the last PR :o[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

edit

I'll be excited to have a read through when I have free time over the next few days, and may even drop a few PR comments as I do so! I haven't read the whole thing yet, but just as a first point, the current inclusion of Kentucky says "The western counties of Virginia, ceded earlier by that state, were admitted as the 15th state, Kentucky." Prior to this the article seems very thorough in recording territory ceded to the Federal government, but there is no note of Kentucky being "ceded earlier" anywhere, and on the immediately preceding maps it is still shown as part of Virginia. If it happened in a very short period of time that should be specified in the text. CMD (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I was reviewing that stuck out to me as well, and wondered what I meant. I think Virginia said "You can have it" in 1789 to the feds, but it wasn't taken until admitted. I'll change that line. Edit: Fixed, found a good source. Virginia had passed legislation in 1789 laying out the terms and conditions. --Golbez (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • Perhaps separate the first row into two rows. One row just for independence provides a nice baseline before getting into all the inter-state disputes.
    • So, just an extra table row? Sharing the date and image cells? I'm not sure on this one.
      • I was thinking two rows, yes with the same date, but one focused on the new international situation, and one on the subnational issues. It'll depend how the image placement eventually works itself out I think, but the current setup with two maps in the Map cell, one international one subnational, doesn't look great or make itself easy to read.
  • The Vermont sections need to be rewritten for context. The text discusses its relations with New York and New Hampshire in the same way it discusses inter-state relations later, and it is not obvious from the current text why the international map is used, and why it doesn't appear in subsequent maps.
    • I'll add a note to the first cell about Vermont, that should have been there. I also changed all links to Vermont Republic to no longer be piped. And elaborated on New York's relationship.
  • If capital changes are going to be included as rows, a map showing the location of each capital would be worth including in those rows as well.
    • I thought about that, but all of the changes seem to be de facto rather than de jure, apart from the District, which is already technically marked on the map.
  • The fact that Virginia's claims become unorganised territory should be in the text as well as in the map.
    • Everything ceded to the federal government was unorganized unless otherwise specified... it seems odd to say "it became unorganized territory" because that's simply the default.
      • True. Could you state this more blatantly in the notes?
  • Should January 11, 1784 be January 11, 1785?
    • Yep!
  • While the overlapping claims of New York, Conneticut, and Virginia are detailed and displayed on earlier maps, the Massachusetts claim is mentioned only when it is dropped.
    • Unlike the far western claims of Massachusetts and New York, Connecticut actively pursued theirs. The Western Reserve was maintained for a while, and the claim in Pennsylvania came to blows. The other claims appear to have been in paper only. I'll add a note to the first cell.
  • On that theme, I am unclear as to why Virginia and Conneticut's western claims are often shown in solid white, while the claims of the other states aren't.
    • Virginia's northwest, and Connecticut's Western Reserve, were actively pursued and/or "canonical." The Western Reserve was by far the most solid of all the western claims. New York and Massachusetts claimed their areas on paper only, whereas if you actually went to those areas, any friendly English-speaking officials would probably be from Virginia or Connecticut.
  • I would also note North Carolina's ceded territories become unorganised in the row of their initial ceding.
    • Yep. Ceded but nothing done with.
  • When Vermont was admitted, did New York simultaneously drop its claim? Further the text should be clarified to note it was functioning independently of the whole US, under the current reading it seems to me that it reads as functioning independently from New York.
    • Clarified, I think.
  • I do not think the union of Great Britain and Ireland should get a line here. Instead it should be included as a line in the notes at the start of the article.
    • It's purely because the name of the entity making the claim had changed. One reason I abandoned showing foreign borders is having to make empty cells to show changes in their borders and names, so I only wanted to do it for things immediately relevant to the U.S., but a change in claim is immediately relevant. I suppose I could add "(United Kingdom after x/x/xx)" but I dislike doing that.
      • What would be the harm in simply removing the row with no other changes?
        • An inaccurate map. The map of international disputes from April 25, 1796, to December 20, 1803, would state that the lands were claimed by Great Britain, which no longer was the name of a country as of January 1, 1801. It's certainly not as major a change as British Columbia joining Canada (and thus transferring its dispute), or Kiribati becoming independent from the UK, but it still seems like it warrants mention. It would be like if Alaska were claimed by the Soviet Union, which then became Russia, but I never noted the change. The map would simply say "Claimed by USSR from 1959 til present". That would be weird! --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the unorganised territory placed under the Mississippi territory on March 27, 1804 the same land that Georgia ceded, or did the Louisiana purchase change the border? It looks very similar on the maps.
    • It was the land that Georgia ceded. I'll add a note.
  • During the war of 1812, did the British actually claim the territories they temporarily conquered (or took and burnt down)? If not I don't understand their inclusion here.
    • I was surprised but they actually did. Quote from the source: "With the capture of Fort Detroit, Michigan Territory was declared a part of Great Britain" The burnt down is only because of the temporary change in capital.
      • Thanks, I am surprised as well.
  • On a related note, why did it take so long to enforce the Treaty of Ghent?
    • per source: "... remained under the control of Great Britain until June 30, 1818, it being stated in the treaty that islands ... should remain in the possession of the party holding them at the time of the ratifications of the treaty. The provision in the treaty for a settlement [wrt the islands] stipulated that the claims thereto should be referred to two commissioners" So it took the commissioners a few years to accomplish their duty.
  • If it's possible, a bit more detail on the areas lost/gained due to the treaty of 1818 would be interesting.
    • I thought about a map, but it wouldn't fit the rules to show their capture so it seemed odd to show their return. What more detail would you like?
      • It it doesn't fit in the rules then that's fine. I would suggest though changing "Moose Island, Maine" to just "Moose Island", to fit with the rest of that paragraph, as it reads like Maine itself was traded back.
        • Quite right, fixed.
  • How could the capture of Mexican land cause no change to the map? Furthermore the captured area on the map includes bits of what previous maps showed as Texas, and the parts in Mexico disappear by the next map.
    • It was an unofficial claim. I omit captures of foreign territory unless it handles a formal annexation, like the Philippines. If I were to include any capture of a foreign unit, we'd be including Iraq. All unofficial claims (claims not by the feds or by a state) are presented for educational purposes but are not displayed in the main sequence of maps. See also: Jefferson Territory, Franklin Territory, Deseret, etc.
      • This doesn't explain why some of Texas fell under the Kearny code. Furthermore it's not clear from the text that the claim is unofficial.
        • Texas' claims were ... ambitious. Many maps, in fact I daresay 95%+ of maps, on the Internet will show that Texas consisted of a rough circle (like our own article: File:Republic_of_Texas_labeled.svg) and the rest was 'claimed'. They say this because a Mexican force recognized the independence of Texas; however, when word of this reached Mexico City, authorities quickly made it clear that the independence was not recognized. That simply can be the area to be said to be claimed and administered by Texas, whereas the rest is claimed by both Texas and Mexico, and administered by Mexico at best. So, this was during the war, when everything outside of that circle was open, and Texas certainly had no authority over in Santa Fe. They simply claimed everything above the Rio Grande. So while Texas claimed Santa Fe, Kearny was the only one to actually exercise power there, for a short time. Since this explanation has gone on for a paragraph clearly I need to add some notes to hope to clear this up. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well 100% of the maps I remember seeing didn't show it as a circle, so that's good for me to know. Perhaps note this as well on the row where Texas is annexed? CMD (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here's an example of what I mean: [1] Note how the eastern 'circle'/'bulk'/'quarter' is "recognized", when in reality that's what the generals on the ground recognized but the government disagreed. I've added a note; do you think it needs more? --Golbez (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I think it should have a bit more on the line where Texas is annexed. Specifically it would be useful to know what borders the US recognised, and an explicit note of de facto Texan/Mexican control. CMD (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is difficult, because I've been avoiding 'day to day' control, and to pick a line for Texas would kind of be doing that, since there's no specific border mentioned in the treaties of Velasco other than the Rio Grande, which is different from the border you normally see for the Republic. --Golbez (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The State of Deseret map seems to have lost Oregon territory? Also it is worth clarifying how Deseret and Utah differed in territorial scope. The dispute with Texas should probably be mentioned in this row as well.

CMD (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's unclear from the text why Indian Territory and the Public Land Strip were handled differently.
    • That ... is a good question. They were both unorganized territory, but both had different purposes and colloquial names. Indian Territory was ostensibly put aside for Indian settlement, whereas the Public Land Strip wasn't, and existed as a geographical anomaly. Added a note to try to explain it.
  • The Palmrya Atoll source is dead.
    • Damn it, Interior. Blarg. Fixing their dead links.
  • The July 14, 1862 line should link/show the territory not the state for Nevada.
    • Fixed.
  • The partial withdrawals from Congress need far more detail. They appear on the internal maps, but not in the text until the elections bit.
    • Agreed, this will be improved upon as I split out the domestic/international maps as noted above.
  • Furthermore, why is CSA Arizona Territory not coloured red like the seceded areas of Louisiana/Virginia/Tennessee are?
    • Those areas are the ones that have withdrawn from Congress; New Mexico Territory's delegate never withdrew, so there was nothing to color. And when the Union created Arizona Territory, it too maintained representation in Congress.
  • Were the confederate areas of Missouri and Kentucky?
    • I think you missed a word. :)
      • Ah, but I didn't. I made a typo instead. Should read, "Were there confederate", and I was referring to how the map had split out unionist bits of some states and assumed the splinter governments must have come from somewhere. CMD (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • While Kentucky and Missouri were admitted to the CSA and given representation in the Confederate Congress, they never held any real control over those states; all congressional districts maintained full representation throughout the war, and congressional representation seemed to be the most objective measure of who to describe as seceded (since many people rightly complained when I colored KY and MO as seceded in the previous version). However, both capitals seem to have fallen at points in the war, so I should at least mention that. --Golbez (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Machias Seal Island be explicitly mentioned at the start of the article? I had been wondering what that dot was.
    • Oh wow, I don't mention it until the very end, huh. Yeah, I'll add a note to add that, need to think of the right wording.

CMD (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've gone through and made almost all of the text in the change frames bigger; it was mostly 12 pt, now it's 18 pt where the map allows. --Golbez (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

edit

More recent comments are at Wikipedia:Peer review/Territorial evolution of the United States/archive3. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff in CA and Golbez: G'day, given that a new PR page appears to have been started, do you wish for this one to be archived? The bot that usually does so has gone down, but I believe I can do the necessary edits manually? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this review has gone stale, so if there are no objections, I intend closing and archiving it in 24 hours. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States/archive2&oldid=759424398"