Talk:History of the United States/Archive 1

This Needs Lots of Work

...and I'm making it my next project. Make this more than just wars and slavery. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

General comment

Although it's incomplete, this looks great so far. I teach American history, so I'm more than willing to help get this to a GA or even VGA eventually. Kansan (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me with the lead? It's one of the article's weaker points Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look at it. Kansan (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for the lead after several tweaks:

The United States is a country in North America. Native Americans have lived there for thousands of years, but in the 1600s and 1700s it was settled by people from England and other countries, and before long, there more people from countries in Europe there than there were Native Americans. The United States declared its independence from England and became a country in 1776. Since then, it has grown into a large world power.

I'm not that happy with the sentence about there being more Europeans than Native Americans, but I wasn't sure how to word that part... Kansan (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost anything you suggest will be fine with me. I do hope we can add a little more, maybe something about the Civil War. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 00:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is going to need three to four paragraphs for the lead. I was only able to write one (or maybe less than one). Maybe someone else can jump in and help.

In 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered America. Later, in 1595, the English tried to settle in America on the Roanoke Islands, but this colony did not last. In 1607, the English settled in Jamestown, Virginia. This was the first, successful settlement. The United States was settled only by England. The Spanish settled built a fort at Saint Augustine Florida in the 1500s. The French settled Canada and the area around the Great Lakes. The growth of the English colonies was not good for the Native Americans. Many of the English brought smallpox, a disease that killed many of the Native Americans. Most of the Native Americans had their land taken away by the colonists. By 1733, there were 13 colonies. They were the first original states. In 1775, at Lexington and Concord, the Revolutionary War started. This war started because the colonists believed that they were not being treated fairly as Englishmen. This was due to high taxes the colonists had to pay to pay for the French and Indian War. George Washington helped lead the colonists during the Revolutionary War. The colonists won the war at Yorktown. On July 4, 1776, people from 13 colonies created the United States Declaration of Independence. This said that they were free from England.

Please feel free to tweak this however seems best. I'm not the best person at writing long leads, but I hope I was of some help here. Megan|^talk_changes 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's one long paragraph, longer than many of the leads I've seen here. I'm guessing it was based off of an en-wiki lead, rather than this article. IMHO, it's a little too in depth...in some parts, it's almost verbatim from the article. I'd maybe cut a third of that, and write one on the 19th century and one on the 20th century. Also, there are some factual, simplifactional and punctuation errors. Here's my edits to yours, on the colonial section

The lead now

The United States is a country in North America. Native Americans have lived there for thousands of years. In 1492, Christopher Columbus went America. In 1607, the English settled in Jamestown, Virginia. This was the first successful settlement in the United States. The United States was settled mostly by England. France, Spain, and the Netherlands also settled in parts of the United States. The growth of the English colonies was not good for the Native Americans, who died of disease and lost their lands. By 1733, there were 13 colonies. They were the first original states. In 1775, at Lexington and Concord, the Revolutionary War started. This war started because the colonists believed that they were not being treated fairly as Englishmen. George Washington helped lead the colonists during the Revolutionary War, which the colonists won. On July 4, 1776, people from 13 colonies created the United States Declaration of Independence. This said that they were free from England.

After the Revolution, the United States set about becoming a new nation. It created a constitution in 1787. The new nation faced many problems, such as slavery. During the 1800s, the United States gained much more land and began to become industrialized. From 1861 to 1865, the United had a war called the American Civil War between the North and South over slavery and what kind of country the United States would become.

After the war, the United States had a time called Reconstruction. That meant putting the country back together. Late in the 1800s, there was a period called the "Gilded Age". In the "Gilded Age", many people came to the United States from Europe and worked in large factories. In the early 20th century, the United States became a world power. It was also one of the largest economies in the world.

-- Post 1900 needs work. Purplebackpack89 06:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on the lead. It looks much better now. My paragraph was pretty long, but, like I said, I'm not the best at leads ;) Megan|^talk_contribs 17:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

This article has waaaaaaaayyy too many images. Someone please delete some of them. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it does. Also, can you please explain what, specifically, is biased? I'm going to remove the conflict of interest tag because it doesn't make sense. Is it because the author lives in the US? That doesn't qualify in this case (for instance, we don't tag the article on "Wikipedia" because everybody is also a writer of Wikipedia.) Kansan (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, too many images. I can't see the [change] buttons. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it does seem that the [change] buttons don't appear at the very bottom of the page in Google Chrome. This isn't a reason to remove relevant images, though, if we could better format them instead. Kansan (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Kansan, it needs a bit of an international approach, with more info about China and European affairs affecting US history somewhere in the article, preferably in the intro for example. It doesn't have enough about other perspectives and concentrates too much on America's view of it's own history, that's where the COI lies (I suppose the {{pov}} tag is fine by itself though, without the COI, maybe it was a little too much tagging). I agree with the alternative however, it's a good start, but if it can't be done I offered the deletion of the images, within consensus of course. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Too many images is not a reason to tag for cleanup or NPOV. Full stop. In addition, I agree with Kansan that there are not too many images. Purplebackpack89 05:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On the foreign affairs front, I found plenty of information about dealings between the United States and Europe in the article (U.S.-China relations fall more under current events). I feel that adding more would tilt the historiography of the article too much toward diplomacy and away from internal movements. But, if you disagree, there's a section below Purplebackpack89 06:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign affairs?

I think this article has enough on foreign affairs. It has no less information on foreign affairs than the EN one does. In addition, there have large portions of American history (i.e. most of the 19th century), where foreign affairs played a minimal role in American history. If we want a history centered on American diplomacy, that could be its own article. However, some think it needs more. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 06:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening inaccurate

I have a problem with the opening:

"The United States is a country in North America. Native Americans have lived there for thousands of years."

This suggests Native Americans have lived in the United states for thousands of years. Given the United States is only a couple of hundred years old, how is this even possible? Surely the Native Americans have lived in the area now known as the United States for thousands of years? Or altered so it makes it clear Native Americans have lived in North America for thousands of years (although this is self-explanatory).

Thoughts? Soup Dish (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just keep it the way it is. Native Americans have lived in what is now the United States for thousands of years; that's completely true and undisputed. By the same logic, we should cut the whole Colonial section, because the United Statess was A) not its own country; and B) not called the United States Purplebackpack89 18:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review

Lead

• "Revolutionary War": Do you mean the War of Independence?
  •  Done Simon^KSK 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reconstruction is written with a capital letter, so it is either worth a link or should be changed to lower case.
  •  Done Simon^KSK 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• In the 1980s and 1990s, the Cold War ended and the and the United States did not make as many things as it used to. - The time can specified. The real end was when the Warsaw Pact ended and the Berlin Wall was removed.
  •  Done - I'm not too sure on the Cold War phrasing, though. Simon^KSK 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason it says '80s and '90s is because there are any number of dates that can be used to signal the. The economic collapse of the USSR started between 85 and 87; the Berlin Wall came down in 89, and the republics broke up in '91. Purplebackpack89 19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just the lead. Before I go on, please go through the article and link all important people, places and occasions as I just did in the lead with George Washington etc.

Furthermore, please fix the references. All of them need an accessdate, publisher etc. Poke me when your are done with this. -Barras (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Red links

There are a few red links that need to be fixed, like Teapot Dome, Social Security, Huey Long, Culture of the United States, and Ethnic groups of the United States. Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The last two don't necessarily need to be fixed; they're in the infobox. I'll make Social Security today. Two redlinks for a 80+ KB article is perfectly acceptable Purplebackpack89 18:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to create Huey Long, and the Teapot Dome scandal tomorrow. Simon^KSK 23:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

VGA review

Lead

• In 1607, the English settled in Jamestown, Virginia. - ..., English people settled... sounds better, I think.  Fixed
• English colonies - I think this is worth a link. Shouldn't there be something about English colonies...  Fixed-linked to Thirteen Colonies
• In 1775, at Lexington and Concord - As you stated an important war for America's history started there, so both cities are worth a link.  Fixed-linked to Battles of Lexington and Concord
• After the Revolution, the United States set about becoming a new nation. - This sentence sounds odd/incomplete.
• Gilded Age - Should be linked as it is written as proper noun. So it seems to be important. -See below
• Roaring Twenties - as above.  Fixed
• The flag: Can you give us a time when this flag was accurate?

 Fixed

• In 1492, Christopher Columbus went to America. This implies that Christopher Columbus actually landed in America, which is a common misconception. Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 01:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, last time I checked, the Caribbean is considered part of North America. Note I don't say that he "discovered" it, however, for any number of reasons. Purplebackpack89 07:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For point of reference, I didn't say Caribbean wasn't a part of North America. Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 13:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying that because he never disembarked, "went" is a bad term? I would still say that he went to America, even if all he did was sail around a few islands. Saying otherwise is a bit revisionist, especially since most sources indicate that he did disembark Purplebackpack89 15:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian America

• I think it's worth to mention that the vikings also went there before. Not really related to the US History, but it is of general interest, I think.  Fixed - though many scholars doubt that the Vikings actually got there

Colonial America

• In early the 1700s - sounds odd to me.  Fixed to "In the early 1700s..."
• Atlantic Economy - Linking.  Fixed

I will do the rest of the article later. Also, as a general note, please use sentences under pictures and add a dot at the end. Looks much better this way. -Barras (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK...all the fixed stuff is fixed. The Vikings coming is debatable, so I said it in passive voice. I somewhat contest the idea that just because something is a proper noun means it's imprortant and has to be linked; we don't have the luxury that English Wikipedia does of having Wikipedia articles on everything (and we're not supposed to either). One of my reasons for this concern is that there are many US-history related articles that have less content and waaay less refs than their respective paragraphs in this article...witness Roaring Twenties now and [Colonial history before my BOLD edit]. In that spirit, I linked Gilded Age down to the American history section on the Gilded Age, rather than create an article that is mostly hash and would probably stay that way. An Atlantic Economy article is comin' down the pipe. As for the "set about becoming" sentence, it makes sense to me as a topic or transitional sentence...verb + preposition + gerund is an acceptable construction in English and other languages (in this sentence, set is a verb, not a noun) Purplebackpack89 17:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Another VGA review

• Numbers that are part of text, up to about 20, as text: 12 -> twelve, 13 -> thirteen, etc.

Intro

• Can we vary a little (are there other easy-to-understand words) for "settle"/"settlement"?
• The US became independent with the resp. declaration (in 1776 I think). Would it make sense to talk about the "territory of the US" or perhaps talk about "North America" (which might include Canada, and Mexico, I know)?

I'm not following you here. I don't think it would (make sense), especially as the other American countries gained independence much later, from different countries, and under different circumstances Purplebackpack89 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• You talk about the Native Americans' misfortunes after the "settlers" from England (etc) came. Can we get a sentence about the lands being inhabited by these natives beforehand?

I thought we had something about "Native Americans have lived there for thousands of years" in the second sentence Purplebackpack89 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• "It created a constitution" -> the US, or the revolution? - What about "The people from the 13 colonies (or similar) created..."?  Done
• "During the 1800s, the United States gained much more land...": Wouldn't the people have to do something to "gain" that land? - Before the time, basically the east coast was settled. So perhaps:"In the 1800s groups of people explored and colonized new land in the west. This lead to the US becoming bigger in size"?

That's not exactly how it went down. Colter and Bridger explored the land AFTER the U.S. bought Louisiana from France; your construction would suggest BEFORE. People did have something to do with it, just not the trappers, traders and early settlers; more like Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingstone and James Monroe. Colonized just isn't the word for it Purplebackpack89 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• "From 1861 - 65 the US had a war..." -> fought a war?  Done
• "In 1991, the Cold War ended when the Soviet Union fell apart"-> "The Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, wich ended the Cold War"?

Moved "in 1991" to between ended and when Purplebackpack89 21:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• "However, it still faces..." -> this sentence is hanging in the air right now, remove it. --Eptalon (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the lead was reviewed above...it's the BODY that needs review Purplebackpack89 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Shouldn't something be added about the Japanese American internment? That was a major event, in my opinion. Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 20:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From the World War II section, women/minorities paragraph: "Japanese-Americans on the West Coast were forced to live in internment camps...", with "interment camps" linking to "Japanese American interment". It's been there all along Purplebackpack89 04:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistent treatment of Columbus

Purplebackpack has asked for some review and help. I'm new around here, but I notice one thing (yes, again, partly in the intro) that I think needs attention but I cannot address myself.

• In the intro:

"In 1492, Christopher Columbus went to America."

• In the section Pre-Columbian America

"The Pre-Columbian is the time before Christopher Columbus went to America in 1492. ... Before Columbus came to America, it is thought that the Vikings came to Newfoundland around the year 1000."

• On the page Christopher_Columbus

"Christopher Columbus was a trader and explorer. ... While he did not actually discover the Americas, he discovered the Bahamas, however close to the Americas. He was once called the first European to find out because people already lived at the Americas, though it is known now that the Vikings did this earlier."

I'm not expert enough to make a decision regarding Columbus or Vikings as the first Europeans to reach the parts of the Americas that became the United States or only Newfoundland, but it seems these three things should be brought in line.

Thanks! Ted O'Neill (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I personally consider the Caribbean to be part of the Americas, and therefore the Columbus article section to be in error (especially since he went to South America in 1498). If the "America" is really eating at you (and I think it's perfectly reasonable), just change America to "New World". Note I never say Columbus or anybody else "discovered" America, only that Columbus went there (which IMO, he did). Also, many of today's scholars now doubt that the Vikings actually got to Newfoundland. And the first explorer to actually set foot in the modern-day U.S.? That'd be Juan Ponce de Leon.

VGA review

• In the Pre-Columbian America section:
  • The article Game says nothing about game as in animals {[fixed}} disambiguated to Game (food)
  • "Around the year 1000, before Columbus went to America, people think the Vikings went to Newfoundland." <-- The paragraph deals with the Pre-Columbian era, so, imo, again mentioning that it was the time before Columbus went to America is redundant. Also, this statement needs a reference.  Fixed
• Colonial America
  • "Though the colony of Virginia barely survived due to disease and starvation, it was eventually successful because it planted tobacco." <-- That isn't simple English.

"In its early years, many people in Virginia died of disease and starvation. The colony lasted because it made money by planting tobacco". That's a lot simpler Purplebackpack89 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• • IMO, "kicked out" should be replaced by thrown out or something similar.  Fixed changed to "driven out
  • Link Dutch to Netherlands, Germans to Germany etc.  Fixed...Scotch-Irish links to Ulster/N. Ireland Purplebackpack89 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "The growth of the colonies was not good for Native Americans. Many of them died of smallpox, a disease brought to America by the Europeans. The ones who lived lost their lands to the colonists." <-- Source?  Fixed I'm giving you Jared Diamond; his book Guns, Germs and Steel is all about that stuff an won a Pulitzer Prize. Though that stuff is pretty common knowledge, and can be found almost anywhere Purplebackpack89 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • During the Great Awakening, preachers such as Jonathan Edwards preached powerful sermons. <-- Link sermon. What do you mean by a powerful sermon anyway?

Until yesterday, it said "firey" sermon. By powerful it means passionate and loud. I'll just link to Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, which surprisingly we have, and that should explain it Purplebackpack89 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• • "The South had large plantation farms that grew tobacco and latter in cotton. "  Fixed rm "in"
• American Revolution
  • Why aren't Sugar Act, Townsend Duties, and Tea Act linked if the Stamp Act is?
  • Sons of Liberty is linked to Boston Tea Party, but the latter article doesn't mention Sons of Liberty...  Fixed Actually, the Boston Tea Party article does mention the Sons of Liberty, in the third paragraph, but I created the article anyway Purplebackpack89 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Must have missed that, sorry for not noticing. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "This led to the British Army taking over Boston, which in turn led to the creation of the Continental Congress, a group of leaders from each of the 13 colonies." <-- Shorten  Fixed split in two sentences
  • Continental Congress should be linked  Fixed
  • "Though American soldiers under George Washington lost many battles to the British, an American victory at Yorktown helped by the French led Britain to decide to stop fighting and give up the colonies. America had won the war and its independence." <-- Source?

Common, non-controversial knowledge, so no source needed, but added a Foner link Purplebackpack89 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the review isn't complete, but I'll try and finish this when I get time. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Period and VGA review

Hi, I'll bypass the introduction and dig into the section on the Federal period here. I have no suggestions or additions regarding content or references. I've noted some suggestions below to simplify or clarify the wording sentence by sentence. I basically tried to shorten sentences for readability, front subjects for easier comprehension, and clean up some choices of wording. Below are eight sentences that I think need work. Each is followed by a short reason for a change and a suggestion. Thanks for reading my comments. I hope they help. Ted (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1. "In 1781, the colonies prepared a Union with the Articles of Confederation, but it only lasted six years."

Even though capitalized, the wording "union with" is ambiguous since some readers might look to the meaning "in combination". A more linear suggestion:

"Leaders from the colonies wrote the Articles of Confederation in 1781 to create a Union. However, this Union of the colonies lasted only 6 years."

This replaces one long sentence with two long sentences; also "six" should be spelled out. To disambiguate, replaced "union" with "confederation of states" and changed a couple other things Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 2. "It had no president. It could not stop Native Americans or the British on the frontier, nor could it stop mob uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion."

At this point "It" is far from the original referent and is repetitive. Also, clarify "stop on".

Suggested:

"It had no president. The Union could not stop Native Americans or the British from crossing the frontier, nor could it stop mob uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion.

Sort of done. Substitute "Confederation" for "It"; also "crossing" is not the issue at hand; more at hand is that the British still had forts in Northwest (the forts they were supposed to leave in the Jay Treaty), and that Native Americans were where colonists/white Americans wanted to settle under the Land Ordinance of 1785. In that spirit, replaced "stop...on" with "remove...from" Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 3. "The US Constitution has been changed and added to many times since then."

Yes, this is true, but is it a key fact about the Federal period after the Bill of Rights? Only two more amendments were passed during this period and they were minor in comparison.

Suggestion: Delete this sentence to improve flow and cohesion.

 Done. 12th Amendment minor? You've got to be kidding me on that one! Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 4. "The main idea is that the government is a representative democracy elected by the people, who all have the same rights."

"Main idea" is floating here. Main idea of the Constitution or of the Bill of Rights?

Suggested: "The main idea behind the Constitution is that the government is a representative democracy elected by the people, who all have the same rights."

 Done Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 5. "In 1795, Congress passed the Jay Treaty, which allowed for increased trade with Britain in exchange for asking the British to give up their forts on the Great Lakes."

What is actually in exchange for what here? Reads as though increased trade was exchanged for a simple request.

Suggested: "In 1795, Congress passed the Jay Treaty, which allowed for increased trade with Britain in exchange for the British giving up their forts on the Great Lakes."

 Done, although remember that the United States at the time couldn't compel the British to do anything. Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 6. "In the election of 1796, which decided who would be President after Washington, John Adams defeated Thomas Jefferson."

Front the subject. Suggested: "John Adams defeated Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1796 to become the next President after Washington. "

 Done, expect "next President after Washington" replaced with "second President of the United States" Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 7. "As president, Adams made the army and navy larger, but also got laws passed to shut down people and newspapers who said bad things about him. "

Did Adams "shut down" a person? Why is "but" used to contrast two things that aren't different: military build up and build up of state power to control speech?

Suggested: "As president, Adams made the army and navy larger. He also got laws passed to stop people and newspapers from saying bad things about him."

 Done, although the two clauses are different, as they concern domestic vs. foreign affairs Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• 8. "Another thing Jefferson did was push for a stop to trade with England and France, who were fighting a war that the United States did not want to be a part of."

Front the subject, avoid idiomatic use of push, and avoid non-specific words like "thing". Also, avoid attributing emotions such as "want" to an entire country.

Suggested: "He also tried to stop trade with England and France so that the United States would not become involved in a war the two countries were fighting."

 Done, expect he--> Jefferson, flip-flop stop and to, and link to the Napoleonic Wars

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotanda (talk • contribs) Note that this section was already reviewed by Sonia, and she had already fixed many things. I have addressed the remainder of your concerns Purplebackpack89 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

VGA things and so on (first section and a bit)

• First image caption - it isn't a flag "during" the American revolution. It's an image of the flag at the time. And no period required.

 Fixed

• "This was the first successful town in the United States." what does "successful" mean here?

It's explained in the body, but by successful, I mean "town that didn't have all its inhabitants die like Roanoke Island" Purplebackpack89 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are they English or British? Be consistent and accurate.
• "This said that they were free from England." really? Not Britain or something else?

You're going to have to figure out those two. I believe in the lead, at least, it's consistently England. In some instances, Americans say, for example the oft-quoted "rights as freeborn Englishmen", when they mean "White landowning men who have reached their majority and live in the British Empire" Purplebackpack89 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the "colonists" here, surely if "George Washington helped lead the colonists during the Revolutionary War, which the colonists won." and the colonists were "English" then how did this result in "independence"?

Colonists changed to "Americans" Purplebackpack89 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• "set about becoming a new nation." doubt it, the US set about re-organising itself, but not "becoming a new nation".

Prior to the Constitution (and many would argue also for years after it), the United States was not a nation in the proper sense of the word; it was merely a loose confederation of sovereign and independent states. In addition, the period of American history between the Revolution and the Jacksonian Era is often known as the "New Nation period"

• "The boom period was known as the "Roaring Twenties". The bust period was known as the Great Depression." some in quotes, some not in quotes. Be consistent.

 Fixed

• "the United States entered a time called the Cold War with the" sorry, but the US didn't "enter a time"

Again with the United States as subject... as with "New Nation" about, it's acceptable to use the figurative U.S. as subject when you're referring to the people or government of the U.S.

• "The Cold War ended in 1991 " nope. It's still not over.

Then why do so many academic articles and textbooks refer to the "Post-Cold War era"? If they are to be believed, and in addition if the en-Wiki Cold War article is to be believed, it's been over for 19 years ( Not done) Purplebackpack89 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The Middle East became important to America, " what do you mean, "became important"? Like 7-11's are important? Be precise.

 Fixed

• "Today, the United States is thought of as the only superpower in the world." presumably this is referenced...
• Hunting buffalo image caption needs no period.
• "the Mayflower." -> "The Mayflower"

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed most of your concerns, and explained why I haven't done the rest Purplebackpack89 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work so far. Plenty, plenty more to come, but it's late here in England/Britain/UK, so more soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, well done so far, but stacks more comments to come once I sleep and regain energy. This is such an important topic, we absolutely can't rush it, as I'm sure you'll agree, and there's a long, long way to go before this gets close to VGA quality, but keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't say long, long way. There are not sections of missing content, or loads of missing references; the only problem is with a few prose concerns here and there. It's probably better right now than what would've passed for VGA a year or two ago Purplebackpack89 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Anyway, more comments to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cold War and Post Cold War feedback re VGA Nomination

Hi there, Purplebackpack89,

I know the intro has gotten a lot of attention and and you would like us to focus on the later parts, so I skipped to the end. Please take all of these in the spirit offered. I am nitpicking, but I guess that is what is required for VGA, right? Please tell me if I'm wrong. Ted O'Neill (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War

"In the United States, this started something called the "Military Industrial Complex", which meant spending a lot of money on big government defense projects.[112]"

Seems like an oversimplification of the concept along with the English. I understand the MIC to be the relationships (and especially the corrupting relationships) between industry, government, and the military-not just military procurement.

Can you figure out a way to say that in Simple English? I.E. not using relationships or procurement? (Simplicity is harder than it looks!)

.."which meant business and government working together to spend a lot of money on weapons projects. They helped each other to get more money and more power." Too radical?? ;-) Ted O'Neill (talk)

 Done. Remember, the phraseology is more based on simplicy and summary style concerns than POV Purplebackpack89 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"The United States once again had prosperity"

Does "once again" indicate that there was a previous, similar period of prosperity? That's the way I read it, but I'm not sure when that would have been.

Uh, the 1920s? Purplebackpack89 06:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the 20s were quite different from the 50s expansion. Income distribution was very different with gains much more concentrated in the 20s. "Distribution of Wealth - Rise in per capita income for top 1% of population, 1920-1929: 75% Rise in per capita income for nation as a whole: 9%" from http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist427/texts/1920seconomy.htm. See also lectures 15 and 16 here http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/html/notes.html. Ted O'Neill (talk)

But to say that the United States never had any prosperity before the 1950s is flat-out wrong. They had different kinds of prosperity before the 1950s, but it was still prosperity Purplebackpack89 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Post Cold War era

Clinton "In 1992, Bill Clinton became President."

Add party affiliation? That is a neutral fact and the alternation of parties is important. Then, also previous/following presidents in Post Cold War

 Not done Clinton was the first President wholly in the Post-Cold War era; subsequent Presidents are listed below, and why is a transition from a centrist Republican like Bush to a centrist Democrat like Clinton all that of a big deal? Clinton broke with his party on a lot of issues. Plus, that information is available on many other pages. Purplebackpack89 06:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reporting party affiliation seems pretty neutral to me. I'm not here to debate the relative merits of centrist anything. Ted O'Neill (talk)

"Under Clinton, the United States sent soldiers into Bosnia.[138]"

Cite link points to a page of press releases from 2006.

Most of them are 2006 accounts dealing with his Bosnia dealings. Besides, sending people to Bosnia is indisputable; it clearly happened Purplebackpack89 06:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not saying it didn't happen, just saying that the citation link points to press releases like "Speech: The Opportunity for Private Citizens to Effect Positive Change in an Increasingly Interdependent World / Press Release: President Clinton Urges Risk Reduction to Become a Global Priority / Transcript: Interview on the Clinton Global Initiative Six Months Later with Der Spiegel" You gotta go pretty far down the page to find a mention of the death of Milosovich. Needs a more substantial link, I think.Ted O'Neill (talk)

"Many people did not like some of the things Clinton did, and he lost Congress in 1994."

Aside from being idiomatic, is "lost congress" accurate. Not to be pedantic, but the Democratic Party lost the House.

Suggested - "Many people did not like some of the things Clinton did. The Democrats lost many elections for the House of Representatives in 1994. The Republicans got control of Congress."

 Fixed Changed to "lost control of Congress to the Republicans". But according to ENwp, the Democrats lost the Senate as well Purplebackpack89 06:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How soon I forget! The Senate too. Ted O'Neill (talk)

"Clinton was impeached for lying in court about sexual activity with a secretary named Monica Lewinsky"

Neutral and accurate account. Tricky one! Yes!

"but the Senate voted not to remove him as President.[140]"

Strictly speaking, I think the Republican Party in the Senate did not get enough votes to remove him. From the cited source "He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him."

 Not done Seems fine the way it is; especially since the Republicans couldn't have impeached him without quite a few Democratic votes. Remember 67 needed for impeachment

They didn't vote "not to remove him". That is different, implying that he would be removed except for an active vote of the Senate not to do so. He was voted not guilty in the trial. More accurate to say the "Senate did not vote to remove him" I think. Picky, yes, I know. Ted O'Neill (talk)

But that makes it sound as if the Senate didn't vote at all. A better way would be "voted against removing him", which is what they did. If people are still confused, that's what the impeachment Wikipedia article is for Purplebackpack89 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK...I have acted on several of your suggestions, but I don't subscribe to your need to attribute things to political parties, when elections are decided on more than the D or R. The 1994 election was as much a referendum on Clinton as it was anything else. Also, there's no need to put my name in Purple when you talk to me...if you want me to know about something, use a talk page Purplebackpack89 06:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the purple, just trying to be polite. Sometimes people are particular about their names. :-) Thanks! Ted O'Neill (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you may want to read up a little more on neutrality and controversy. Just because something is neutral doesn't mean it belongs in the article (For example, "I got out of bed and brushed my teeth" is neutral, but it doesn't necessarily belong in a Wikipedia article); and if something is uncontroversial (i.e. it clearly happened and is mentioned everywhere), it doesn't need references. You may also want to look into "summary style" as well...if articles like this one went into too much minutia, they'd be a megabyte long (this article is very long already). Topics like party affliation of the President or the impeachment process can be covered in sub-articles such as Impeachment and List of presidents of the United States. Have a nice day! Purplebackpack89 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A few more thoughts on the Cold War section

I know it must seem like this is taking forever, but I try to look at this article when I can. I have a few more questions about this part--some specific, and some general.

Specifics:

• I added links to existing articles for Steinem and Friedan. They are important figures and the articles existed. I see you added the link to NoW. I wonder then, Does Phyllis Schafly need to be linked also for balance?

• Nearby, how about Roe v. Wade? Needs a link? It is pretty major.

In those two cases, I think they are better defined here then in any article we could produce. Also, this article has something on the order of 500-600 links. I think it's pretty covered linkwise Purplebackpack89 02:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise the Moral Majority and Religious Right. Is it useful to link here Christian_right?

Religious right has a page. Use that Purplebackpack89 02:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Re the Great Society. As written "helped poor and minority people living in cities" it leaves out rural poor and minorities and poor whites. Suggested: "helped the poor and protected minorities".

Done Purplebackpack89 02:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

More general:

I wonder about the whole organization of this part (i.e., "The Cold War" and then the subhead "The Cold War at Home"). The first section immediately after The Cold War is about the just that, the Cold War itself. The following section subhead "The Cold War at Home" doesn't describe the content that follows. The Red Scare was at home and is in the section above. Most of the content in "The Cold War at Home" (feminism, rock and roll, abortion, civil rights) is not actually about the Cold War itself, but rather other things that were happening at the same time. Maybe revise that? Postwar seems a better umbrella term that could contain the Cold War and then all for the other domestic events that were happening.

Thanks, Ted (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the subjects covered in "The Cold War" subsection are all about foreign policy and Communism. None of the things that are in the "Cold War at home, but you have to remember the broader spectrum of the Cold War/Vietnam War that loomed over all those events. For example, the Great Society was contemporaneous with the Tonkin Gulf Resolutions. Purplebackpack89 02:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do remember that things such as Gulf of Tonkin and The Great Society were contemporaneous, but what is the relationship between those things? Why should the Civil Rights movement be considered part of the Cold War? At a stretch you could say that the Soviets used racial discrimination in the US for propaganda purposes, but it's still pretty tenuous. How was abortion policy and politics part of the Cold War? The subheading, "The Cold War at home" doesn't preview or describe the content that follows. From that subhead, I would expect something like (in no particular order) "Duck and Cover", Dr. Strangelove, Civil Defense and Fallout Shelters, HUAC/McCarthyism/Alger Hiss/Whittaker Chambers (which is in the above section), or the Rosenberg case. Feminism and Civil Rights may have been happening at the same time as the Cold War, but they weren't domestic aspects of the Cold War.

Looking back at the outline early on the talk page shows a very different organization:

The Cold War, 1945-1991

• Marshall Plan
• Arms and Space Races
• Cold-War Prosperity
• Civil Rights
• Vietnam War
• The Counterculture
• Foreign Policy in the 1970s

• "Detente"
• Latin America

• Reagan's Domestic

That seems like a more accurate way of organizing this and just add the word "Era" or "Period" as was done elsewhere. Although, Postwar Era, 1945-2001 might be another way of putting this too.

Ted (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I see three problems with that:

1. The section only lasts to 1989 or 1991, not 2001,

and the two reasons I reneged on my own outline

1. The section is too long. It needs to have two subsections
2. That way, you go forward and back between Cold War/foreign policy issues

I do agree that the section headings are somewhat misleading, so I have retitled them. I do not agree, however, that the Cold War had no effect whatsoever on domestic issues, even those that didn't have to do with Communism. The youth counterculture and Anti-Vietnam War movements were very closely intertwined; LBJ, MLK Jr. and Malcolm X had to deal with Guns vs. Butter issues Purplebackpack89 04:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said there was "no relationship". Let's try to be a little more nuanced, rather than so black and white. Did the Cold War have effects on many things at that time? Of course it did. But, so did many other events and trends. Civil Rights and Women's Rights have much earlier roots and you could look at actual war-time experiences as very important.

Anyway, I hope a few people will look at the way I tried to reorganize this last part. I've changed the headings for a few reasons. The slash in "Postwar/Cold War Era, 1945-1991" seems against Manual of Style. Also, the entry for Cold War puts the end at 1989. Post-Cold War sub-section then fits neatly in a general Postwar 1945-2000. 2001 marks a significant return to war for the US (not that the US wasn't fighting at other times). 2001 also marks the terror attacks, new presidential administration (see my correction on when Bush was elected rather than became president), and a new century. Labeling the new section with a neutral and factual "in the 21st century" allows an organizational break. You had this planned in the original outline as "Current Issues in America". That would be fine too, but "issues" may be somewhat limiting (i.e., Are events issues?) This also gets around the problem of leaving the US in a perpetual Post Cold-War state as had been written. There are several sentences that can still be simplified and then a better intro to the last section is still much needed. I'll see what I can do on those. Thanks, Ted (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and simplified some of the sentences by splitting them into two and by fronting the subjects. There is so much passive voice here. I may come back to a few like sentences about Katrina that could be active voice and easier to read. Most of the changes were to make sentences shorter and clearly identify the subjects. There are so many relative clauses throughout. I also made some statements more specific (the US did not just "go to" Afganistan, but invaded and occupied it). The one addition I made was a reference to the Long War and a new American Imperialism. This fits with the section organization that the US is no longer in a postwar period, but in two long-running wars which may continue for a long time to come. Hope that looks OK. Ted (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

Lead

• Link disease. Y
• "This war started because the American colonists believed that they were not being treated fairly as Englishmen" this is confusing. It's unclear who the war was between.

In the previous sentence I added something about it being with England

• "all of the states that had left came back to the United States" this is unclear - where did the states "that had left" go?!

 Not done...in the previous paragraph; "In 1861, several states in the South left the United States to start a new country called the Confederate States of America." Purplebackpack89 19:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "time called Reconstruction" vs "period called "Gilded Age"" vs "called the Cold War" - some in quotes, some not. Why?

Gilded Age fixed

• Link "economies". Y
• Link "African-Americans" and "Chicanos". Y
• Link "Soviet Union"

Already linked once in lead

Pre-Columbian

• Link "fished". Y
• "Great Plains" needs an article/link. Y

Colonial America

• "but that did not last." very cryptic. Say what happened.

 Not done En: "The fate of the colony was never authoritatively ascertained", so nobody knows. Top theories are smallpox and eradicated by Indians Purplebackpack89 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Say something like that then, not just leave it so cryptic. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Purplebackpack89 03:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd reduce the number of images you use, increase their size using the thumb parameter only, i.e. not forcing the size, and add useful captions, not just "Jamestown, Virginia" for instance.

I cut the Mayflower image, resized Jamestown to 210, and added more caption Purplebackpack89 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, stop forcing the sizes of the images, just use thumb or upright for portrait-shaped images. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed those two in question. However, my general idea is to have a lot of images that represent a variety of topics, and if viewers want to see them bigger, they can just click on them Purplebackpack89

Well image sizes should not be set to be so small. Think accessibility. And remember, less is more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "who was driven out of " not simple, this could easily be interpreted as using a motor vehicle to leave!

I could say not done because "drive" is 1500. But I changed it to "left Massachusetts for disagreeing with the Puritans" Purplebackpack89 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Link "fort". Y
• Lots of short paragraphs here, it would be more elegant to merge some of them.

Merged Ps 3 and 4, and the regions and Atlantic economy paragraphs. The others seem to be about different enough things to have their own paragraph (remember, we're covering almost 200 years in this paragraph!) Purplebackpack89 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Roger Williams links to a dab page.

Fixed in both ways...disambed here; and changed the disam page to a redirect (20 redlinks, 1 bluelink) Purplebackpack89 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The ones who lived lost their lands to the colonists." is unreferenced.

It's very common non-contro knowledge, so it probably doesn't need to be. But I added a copy of the Diamond reference for that. Purplebackpack89 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "preachers such as Jonathan Edwards preached powerful sermons." preachers ... preached... repetitive.
• "issued the Proclamation of 1763" and the relevance of this is...?

"It said that people who lived in the thirteen colonies could not live west of the Appalachian Mountains" (very next sentence). Also added, "Many colonists who wanted to move to the frontier did not like the Proclamation" Purplebackpack89 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

American Revolution

• Link "tax" Y
• And "vote" Y
• All significant items here should have articles, so Sugar Act, Townsend Duties and Tea Act need to be created.
• "After the Tea Act, the Sons of Liberty dumped hundreds of boxes of tea in a river in an act known as the Boston Tea Party (1773)" - act is getting confusing now. The Boston Tea Party wasn't an act in the same sense that the Tea Act was an act. Rephrase to avoid confusing our Simple English readers, particularly as (1773) implies that it is an act in the same sense as Tea Act.

Split into two sentences Purplebackpack89 22:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Continental Congress needs an article.

Um, it has one... Purplebackpack89 22:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "a man named" totally unnecessary. Y

The Federal Period

• Check image captions - if they're incomplete sentences, they should not have a full stop.
• "citizens" is overlinked.
• I think you need an article about the amendments to the constitution. Very important.

For right now, it appears to be adequately covered in United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and several articles on specific amendments. Purplebackpack89 22:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Jay Treaty is important, so should have an article. Y
• "However, Great Britain was still doing things that hurt the U.S., such as impressment (making American sailors join the British Navy)." unreferenced. Y
• I'm not sure the navy has ever been referred to as the "British Navy". Royal Navy perhaps.

 Not done The term is ambiguous, and would be very ambiguous in that context. Not to mention that it generally is referred to as the British Navy outside the Commonwealth, and I have always heard it referred to as the British Navy when impressment comes up. Purplebackpack89 22:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because you've "hear of it" as the British Navy, it doesn't make it right. It's an incorrect term. It's the Royal Navy. Simple as that. I will oppose based on this alone, regardless of anything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous and preposterous in about 15 different ways Purplebackpack89 04:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And that is just your opinion. If you insist in having inaccurate terminology in your PVGA then I'll oppose it. Perhaps we should rename the article "History of the US of A" because loads of people I know refer to USA as such. That, of course, is stupid, but insisting on referring to things incorrectly is ridiculous and preposterous in just one way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion? The term is in textbooks. It's ambiguous. I've changed it to British Royal Navy because we need to have the British in there to avoid ambiguity Purplebackpack89 18:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• And if you link US navy, you should at least link Royal Navy. Y
• "to buy the Louisiana Purchase" no, he didn't "buy" the "purchase", he possibly "made" the purchase... Y
• "Fighting broke out between the United States and England in 1812 when James Madison was President. This was called the War of 1812." unreferenced.

 Not done Common and non-controversial Purplebackpack89 22:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Not "common" to me in the slightest. Reference please. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still non-controversial. The facts are not in dispute. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not common knowledge. You're asking me to reference "The War of 1812 began in 1812"...that can't be any less controversial Purplebackpack89 04:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(taking a prose break)

I want a reference to say war broke out in 1812. It's not common knowledge. This is "Simple English" not "Simple American" Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's being a little ridiculous to ask that the War of 1812 started in 1812, but I'll give you one anyway 18:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Many problems here:

• Date formats must be consistent throughout the references, not a mixture of yyyy-mm-dd and mm dd, yyyy (compare 149 with 150). Y
• Bare URLs should not be visible (76, 97 for examples) Y
• Page ranges, year ranges, all need to be separated with en-dashes, not hyphens (112, 119 etc)
• Repeated references should use ref name= (101, 102, 106 for instance) Y
• Publication dates should be used wherever available and be complete (e.g. 85 is actually April 9, 1965, not just April 1965)
• References should have, as a minimum, publisher, accessdate, title (e.g. 140, 147, 148 missing information) Y

You need to check each and every reference for reliability as well. I'll be going through each one as well before I can consider removing my strong oppose.

As you can see above, the references have already been checked in a review Barras did a few weeks ago. All books have an author; all websites have either an author or a publisher. You merely found a few anomalies, which I have fixed. I put virtually all the references there, and almost all of them of textbooks, books, or online journals or news content. You can check them if you want, or you could just take my word for it. I think your strong oppose is too strong right now, considering that this is better referenced and more thorough than most other VGAs Purplebackpack89 04:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

References aren't everything. Prose and style are just as important to me. My strong oppose also because if I found this many problems (see above) with the first third of the article, I'm sure I'll find more in the next two-thirds. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

More reviews when each of these points have been satisfactorily addressed. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Expansion, industrialization and slavery, 1815–1861

• 3 million->three million. Y
• What's a "cotton gin"? Y link
• "The South wanted stronger state governments, but the North wanted a stronger central government." definitely needs referencing. Y
• I'm not aware of the phrase "fake river". Can't you just link canal?

Canal is linked now, and I also use the term fake river as a simplification of "Artificial River", a name for canals in general and the Erie in particular Purplebackpack89 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would link Industrial Revolution. Y
• "mid 1800s" hyphen needed. Y
• "Second Great Awakening" major term, needs linking. Y
• "Second Great Awakening though they could" typo - thought? Y
• Any chance of a wikt link to "reform"? Y
• "One of these was the Temperance Movement, which believed that drinking alcohol was not good for society. The other was abolition, which wanted to end slavery. People such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and William Lloyd Garrison wrote books and newspapers about how slavery should stop. They also formed political movements, which included the Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party and the Republican Party. Slavery was mostly ended in the North by 1820, but continued in the South." all entirely unreferenced.

Three refs added Purplebackpack89 21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• "19th Century" vs "19th century" consistency?
• " By the 19th century, women such as Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton thought that women should have more rights. In 1848, these women met and agreed to fight for more rights for women, including voting. Many of the women involved in the movement for women’s rights were also involved in the movement to end slavery." again, all unreferenced again. Particularly specific years and people references.

Two refs added Purplebackpack89 21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Andrew Jackson caption needs no full stop. Y
• Is "import" simple? Y wikt link
• "moved West" vs "went West" consistency?

Either term is acceptable Purplebackpack89 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Black Hawk War" needs an article. Y
• "were mad at books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin" - "were mad at" is hardly encyclopedic, and the book should have a link.

It may sound unencyclopedic, but it's true. Consider what happened on the floor of the U.S. Congress during the 1850s. At one point a Southern Congressman pulled a pistol on a Border State Senator and almost shot him. Another time, a Southern Congressman bashed in the head of a Northern Senator with a cane. This is in America's chief deliberative body. Outside of the Senate, you have all the vigilante violence in Kansas were pro-slavery and pro-abolition people went around killing each other. Garrison and Stowe would've faced major bodily harm if they went down South. I'd say mad is putting it very mildly. Purplebackpack89 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's too colloquial for an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it to "angry" then. Purplebackpack89 20:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Civil War

• What's the "Democratic Party"? First mention, and no link or explanation.

Linked in 1815-61 section Purplebackpack89 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• General links to a dab page.
• "Confederate Generals" vs "Union generals" - consistency. Y
• "By 1865, Union General Ulysses S. Grant had taken Richmond and forced Lee to give up the fight." unreferenced.

 Not done As usual, non-controversial info. No need to be referenced Purplebackpack89 20:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As usual, your "common knowledge" assumes everyone else's common knowledge. This needs reference. And "forced Lee to give up the fight" is POV/OR unless you cite it, clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I gave you a ref, but note I said "non-controversial", not "common" Also, OR? Are you kidding me? Remember that "not everything need be referenced", even in a VGA Purplebackpack89 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reconstruction and the Gilded Age

• First para completely unreferenced.

Actually, it has three references, all of them reliable Purplebackpack89 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "during this time" "at this time" quick repeat, repetitive prose.

Rm second one

• "and almost kicked him out " far too colloquial for an encyclopedia.

Changed to "removed him from office"

• ""Jim Crow" laws" should have article.

Uh, it does Purplebackpack89 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Tenements image shouldn't have a full stop. Y
• You repeat wikilinks to countries, but not to important concepts like "Congress". Why? Y
• "to move West, and new states were formed in the West" poor prose, may "to move West where new states were formed."
• "helped get people" -> helped transport?

Didn't know transport was simple Purplebackpack89 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "to move West" vs " to move west. " - consistency. Y
• Why did farmers use the railroad to the point where it made them poor?

Good question. Historians have been working on that one for quite a while. General consensus is because the farmers thought not using the railroad would have made them even poorer. Also, from an economic standpoint, most farmers could only transport their, which meant the railroad had a monopoly and could charge whatever it wanted to the farmers, since they had no alternative. Purplebackpack89 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Populist Movement is important, needs a link.

So, some more to do, hope the line-by-line review is useful and appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Progressive era and imperialism

• Progressivism needs an article. Y
• Not sure your definition of it is correct either. It's about reform, not necessarily about the government taking a larger role in anything. Perhaps in this specific case you're correct, but don't define a word incorrectly.

added an introductory clause

• "foreign affairs" is not Simple. Y linked to foreign policy
• "The Spanish-American War" caption is woefully inadequate. What is the picture of?Y
• Philippines.[77]. - spare full stop. Y
• "had served in" not simple - "was a soldier in"? Y
• "Roosevelt was president" you've usually capitalized President.
• Panama Canal work needs a reference.Y
• "time period, " one or the other, but not both. Y
• "Pure Food and Drug Act" needs an article. Y
• "was something called “Trust-Busting”, where big businesses are broken up into smaller ones" change of tense here - "were broken up" would read better. Y
• "import fees" is not simple. Y
• "During this time, the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were passed. They allowed for a federal income tax and direct election of U.S. Senators." unreferenced (and don't tell me amendments to the great constitution don't need references, they do).

Well, if something is printed in an almanac and in the back of every U.S. history textbook... Purplebackpack89 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is Simple English, not Simple American Wikipedia. Ref please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I reffed it DAYS ago! Purplebackpack89 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

World War I

• "It eventually entered World War I in 1917" - don't repeat WWI so quickly, so "entered the war in..."
• "and the war" vs "the War" - be consistent.

Boom and Bust: 1919–1939

• "and went after" a little too colloquial for an encyclopedia. Y changed to "attacked", if this was regular English I'd use "harrassed" Purplebackpack89 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• "business sector" is not simple. `
• Can't believe you haven't linked Ford here. Y
• Link Advertising. Y
• "the 1920s are called the "Jazz Age"." needs a reference. Y
• "It passed laws and treaties that supposedly would end war forever" such as? And do you mean end wars that the US would be involved in? I mean, they couldn't pass a law or treaty to stop Spain invading Portugal could they?

You and I both know that the Kellogg-Briand Pact didn't work (hence the supposedly)...well, they tried Purplebackpack89 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the Kellogg-Briand Pack. Don't make assumptions. You know what they say about that... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The general idea is that the United States and several other nations sign the Kellogg-Briand Pact and other treaties, but they weren't effective at stopping conflict. A better example would be the United States' frequent sojourns into Latin America, even after the K-B Pact Purplebackpack89 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Link arms.
• "became president." - same comment as above, p or P? Y
• is "regulating" simple? No. Y wikt link
• Explain Teapot Dome.

Added a sentence about Fall and all that Purplebackpack89 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Calvin Coolidge believed that" no need to repeat his first name. Y
• " keep its hands out of business" no need for "its hands" Y
• "Herbert Hoover, " no need to so quickly relink and no need to repeat his first name. Y
• "Franklin D. Roosevelt became president. " see above. Y
• "Franklin D. Roosevelt created " just "He created" would be fine. Y
• "National Recovery Administration" and "Works Progress Administration" need articles.
• What is CIO? Y
• "The New Deal is one of the most studied times in American history" according to whom?

I just killed that sentence Purplebackpack89 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

World War II

• Several too-short paragraphs here.

Merged the "created jobs" sentence and the Hiroshima sentences into the main paragraph. Think the pre-war paragraph and the women/minorities paragraph are just long enough to stand on their own

• Why not link "naval" to navy then you don't need (sea). Y
• Worth mentioning that dropping those two atomic bombs instantly killed nearly a quarter of a million Japanese civilians, to balance the simple claim that it was "to end the war".

I added a sentence about it killing a quarter million Japanese in four days (Aug. 6-9) Purplebackpack89 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War

• Why relink United States here? I think we get it by now. Y
• Link "tension". Y
• "1950s-1970s" should be an –, so "1950s–1970s" Y
• Link Korea the country. Y
• I think it's worth noting what a military disaster Vietnam was and how many were killed rather than just saying "the United States left due to American people wanting to end the war." You've made it sound rather twee instead of the complete failure it really was.

"Over a quarter million Americans died or were wounded in Vietnam, which was very much a military failure" That should work for you Purplebackpack89 21:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Cuban Missile Crisis. During the Cuban missile crisis" consistent capitalisation. Y
• "The House had a group " which House?

Y Why the House of Representatives of course! Purplebackpack89 21:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "being executed. [119]Many" space after ref, not before ref. Y
• Why suddenly link Cold War halfway through this paragraph? Y
• "was something called the" remove "something called". Y
• "which rebuilt postwar Europe " not sure this is Simple English.

I removed "postwar", and I think it is if you do that (build is definitely SE) Purplebackpack89 21:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Link and name Ronald Reagan in full the first time you mention him, not the second.
• "who were President" Presidents, or "both President". Y
• You use wikt for racism then SEWP for racism. Seems odd to me.
• "Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem founded groups such as the National Organization for Women" links for important people and important organisations please.
• "Equal Rights Amendment" also looks very important.

Not really. It failed, and it's adequately explained in this article. If you think it needs to be created, you can create it. You've made a lot of requests, but haven't done much actual work on the article. Purplebackpack89 00:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And I've spent literally HOURS reviewing this article just for you. If you don't want to action these comments then so be it, and I'll oppose the PVGA wholeheartedly. I have no interest in the article, I have interest in ensuring that articles passed to VGA are of sufficient quality. This one is not. Yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Article created. P.S.: Hours? I can match that and add a day. The idea is this is supposed to be the work of MULTIPLE editors, not one editor making 200-300 edits and other edits making 10. Purplebackpack89 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talkpage, I've tried to help you in the best way I can. I'm not interested in this article, just interested in guaranteeing the integrity of VGA. Good luck, from now on I'll be helping editors who actually show a modicum of appreciation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• "something called the Counterculture came" remove "something called". And is it really capitalised? Y
• "conservative" links to a dab. Y
• Hippies at Woodstock caption doesn't need a full stop. Y

Post Cold War era

• I suspect this should be Post-Cold War era. Y
• "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Cold War came to an end" it came to an end over a period of many years? Reads odd to me. Tensions thawed out mainly due to Gorbachev and the Berlin Wall etc. That should be mentioned I guess.

Several years, yes. It started in 85-86 with perestroika, and ended with the break up of the Soviet Union. Purplebackpack89 00:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• "meaning it received more from" more what? Be explicit. Y
• Say why Gulf War I happened - i.e. invasion of Kuwait, protection of oil reserves. This had nothing to do with the US's affiliation with Israel.

Added the Kuwait invasion. The "other countries...Israel" part is in reference to Iran and Syria Purplebackpack89 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• soldiers to Bosnia - why? And was it part of the United Nations? If so, say so.

Added "as part of a United Nations mission"

• Say what NAFTA is before using the abbreviation. Y
• "killing thousands of Americans" don't forget it killed hundreds of non-Americans as well.

Hundreds? Seems a little high...maybe a hundred. Also, not sure how that fits into this. Fine anecdote for the 9/11 article, just not this one Purplebackpack89 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shows how much research you do and how US-centric this is. Try looking at en:Casualties of the September 11 attacks for an update. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Watch it! If we're trading barbs here, I could point out that I've made about 200 edits to the article and you've made about two... Anyway, that seems a detail that belongs in September 11 attacks, not here. And US-centric? It's an article about the history of the United States, so it's to be expected that most of the content is about the actions of Americans Purplebackpack89 05:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• " when two New York skyscrapers fell." perhaps "after being flown into by hijacked aircraft".

"Hijacked" isn't simple. I added 'after being flown into by airplanes in an act of terrorism"

• I believe the correct title of the act is "USA PATRIOT Act". References here and our article are incorrectly uncapitalised.

You've got an e-mail about that. It has too many caps in a row to be called that, apparantly Purplebackpack89 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "others who planned the September 11 attacks." now then. This is unreferenced. I would really strongly urge a ref here because I don't recall 100% definitive proof that OBL himself directly planned the attacks. I know there's a lot of suggestion, but you need to reference it. Shouldn't be too hard. Or better still, reference it and say "others who they believe planned..."

Ref added Purplebackpack89 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Later" - Say when, "In 2003..." Y
• "In 2006, the Democrats won back Congress because Americans did not like the way Bush dealt with War in Iraq or Katrina.[153]" reference is dead for me so I can't proof the logic that "Democrats won back Congress because Americans did not like the way Bush dealt with...".

Switched the ref to Gallup Purplebackpack89 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "During the recession, the government used large amounts of money to keep the banking and auto industry from falling apart. Obama not only had to deal with the recession, but also something called the "Tea Party" (a movement that did not like big government), and a large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico." unreferenced.

Added a reference Purplebackpack89 00:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Related pages

• Do you honestly believe that you need United States in this list?
• As a rule of thumb, don't include pages here that you already link above. That's most of these.
• You have a lovely template linking to all things American, so this list is pretty much redundant.

References next! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References part (i)

• General comment: access dates and publication dates need to be entirely in the same format throughout, so not a mixture of "13 December 2007" and "2007-12-13".
• Ref 1 - what makes this a WP:RS? It looks like a self-published website as part of a student's thesis by Lawrence E. Bethune?
• Ref 2 - author name formats should be consistent - i.e. "last, first".

Uh, not according to MLA, APA and CMS...in those formats, you do last, first for the primary one and first last for the others. I can find no reference to this question in MOS, so I'm going to use CMS in this case Purplebackpack89 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 2 - pp. 91 - you're just referencing one page, so p. 91 is fine. Y
• Ref 3 - no publisher information, looks like you could add author and at least 1999 as publication date. And the title is "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower?". Y
• Ref 4 - author name format should be "last, first". Y
• Ref 5 - pp. 13 (see above). Y
• Ref 6 - no page reference.
• Ref 8 - no page reference.
• Ref 9 - en-dash needed for page range. Y
• Ref 9 - author name format should be "last, first". Y
• Ref 10 - en-dash needed instead of spaced hyphen in title. Y
• Ref 11 - Internet Modern History Sourcebook appears to be the work, while Fordham University are publishers. And there's a publication date you can add. Y
• Ref 12 - no page reference.
• Ref 13 - en-dash needed for page range. Y
• Ref 14 - "249,273-4, 299-300." -> "249, 273–274, 299–300.".
• Ref 16 - author name formats should be consistent - i.e. "last, first".

See above about two + authors Purplebackpack89 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 16 - no page references.
• Ref 17 - About.com is most definitely not a WP:RS.

Since I have two references for this section, I'm axing that one Purplebackpack89 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 18 - no page reference.
• Ref 19 - US Census is not the author, it's the publisher.

It's both. The US collected the data and did the research, so it's effectively the author and the publisher Purplebackpack89 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 20 - no page reference.
• Ref 22 - appears to have two books, which is odd, separate out, and page range needs an en-dash. Y
• Ref 23 - not happy with referencing a wiki as a reliable source, even Wikisource. Can't you find an alternative? Same for refs 26, 28 and 29.

I fixed 23, 28, and 29...I'll get back to you on 26 Purplebackpack89 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 24 - page range needs an en-dash. The link is to Google books and doesn't provide any text.

I'm getting text Purplebackpack89 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 25 - page range needs an en-dash. Y
• Ref 31 - pp. shouldn't be used for a single page ref. Y
• Ref 32 - missing a ", page range needs an en-dash. Y
• Ref 33 - needs an en-dash in the title, missing a publisher, missing a format=PDF Y
• Ref 34 - no page reference.
• Ref 36 - dead.

Very much alive. Worked for me just a couple minutes ago. Added publisher and format Purplebackpack89 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

36 done, 119 to go! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References part (ii)

• Ref 37 - author name formats should be consistent - i.e. "last, first". Y
• Ref 37 - what makes someone's work at ancestory.com reliable?

Looking at his historiography and methods section, his research appears to be well-founded in primary and secondary sourced Purplebackpack89 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 37 - no publisher information, or access date. Y
• Ref 38 - no publisher information. Y
• Ref 39 - no page reference nor isbn number. Y
• Ref 41 - US Census is the publisher, not the author, no accessdate, and right now, this is dead.

As with the other census one, it's live now, and since the Census Bureau compiled the info, it's the author Purplebackpack89 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 42 - see comments made on ref 11. Y
• Ref 43 - author name formats should be consistent - i.e. "last, first".

See what I said about CMS and 2+ authors Purplebackpack89 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 43 - page range needs en-dash. Purplebackpack89 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 44 - odd date format compared to others, needs format=pdf
• Ref 45 - you use Foner a lot so make it a general reference and just refer to specific pages in the refs rather than repeat all the information every time (so "Foner, p. 293")
• Ref 47 - no page reference and no isbn.

Book's too old to have an ISBN Purplebackpack89 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 48 - malformed. Y
• Ref 50 - page range needs en-dash. Y
• Ref 51 - no page reference.
• Ref 52 - no publisher. Y
• Ref 53 - spare comma, ref doesn't work for me in Safari.

You have to wait for it to load, switch it to full book, and then scroll down a few pages Purplebackpack89 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 55 - year range needs en-dash, you've got "LearnCalifornia.org" as the work, who's the publisher? Y
• Ref 56 - no publisher information. Y
• Ref 57 - no publisher, isbn, page reference.

Again, it's too old for an ISBN Purplebackpack89 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 58 - title needs en-dash for year range, no isbn, no publisher, no page reference.

Again, it's too old for an ISBN Purplebackpack89 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 59 - and Refs 62–64, see advice on Ref 45 (Foner) for repeated use of same reference.
• Ref 59 - and Refs 62–64, author name formats should be consistent - i.e. "last, first". And page ranges need en-dash.

Again...multiple authors are flipped like that Purplebackpack89 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 60 - see Ref 45, and en-dash for page range.
• Ref 65 - no page reference.
• Ref 66 - no page reference.
• Ref 67 - no page reference.
• Ref 68 - date reference is different from most others, author is missing, work is missing.

Changed template. Work not needed in this case Purplebackpack89 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 69 - year range needs an en-dash, page reference is missing.
• Ref 70 - see Ref 59.
• Ref 71 - no page reference, no isbn.  Not done again, too old
• Ref 72 - no page reference.
• Ref 73 - "Case DS" etc, why not "Case, D.S." like other references? Y
• Ref 74 - en-dash needed for year range, no isbn.  Not done too old

Nearly half way! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References part (iii)

• Ref 75 - no page reference.
• Ref 76 - MA -> M.A.? And no page reference. And author name formats should be consistent - i.e. "last, first".

Not done on either acct. MA is the postal abbreviation for Massachusetts, the city where the book was published, it's not an acronym. Also see above about CMS and multiple authors Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Page ref? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 77 - no page reference.
• Ref 78 - and Ref 79, see Ref 59.
• Ref 80 - no page reference.
• Ref 81 - date incorrect, publisher missing.

It's a Journal article, so it has the title of the journal in lieu of publisher Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 82 - publisher missing, no page reference, no isbn.

Again, old book

• Ref 83 - no page reference, year range needs en-dash. Y
• Ref 84 - no page reference.
• Ref 85 - see Ref 59.
• Ref 86 - no page reference.
• Ref 87 - KD -> K.D. etc. And what's Bull Hist Med?

It's a journal Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Called "Bull Hist Med"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I corrected it to Bull. Hist. Med. It's a History of Medicine journal Purplebackpack89 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 89 - date formats, Y
• Ref 90 - publication date has a day as well, no publisher.

As with a journal, the title of the magazine serves as publisher Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 91 - date range needs en-dash, no page reference. Y
• Ref 92 - no page reference.
• Ref 93 - no page reference.
• Ref 94 - no page reference, no isbn.

Again, when you say "no ISBN", remember that something before the 1970s won't have one

• Ref 95 - see Ref 59.
• Ref 96 - why isn't America in italics? What does " Ed. Stephen Whitfield. Oxford: Blackfield" mean? Consistent name formats.

That's an MLA-formatted citation, my friend Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

p. not pp. please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 97 - spare period, date format. Y
• Ref 98 - is "Little, Brown" the publisher?

Yeah. It has a comma there Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 99 - publisher? Y
• Ref 101 - no page reference.
• Ref 102 - publisher? Y
• Ref 103 - see ref 59.
• Ref 104 - publisher? And right now, this page is blank for me. ^[1]
  • What do you mean by {{ref}}? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry. That was supposed to be a Y
• Ref 105 - page reference? isbn.

Old book! Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 106 - (and ref 108, 110, 113) see ref 59.
• Ref 107 - page reference, name format.

Nothing wrong with the name format Purplebackpack89 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 109 - isbn?  Not done
• Ref 111 - author name formats should be consistent - i.e. "last, first". Retrieval date? publisher?

Seattle Times is the publisher Purplebackpack89 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Times is a work, published by Frank A. Blethen. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 112 - publisher? Y
• Ref 115 - publisher? What makes 25batallion.org reliable?

All of the information on that page appears to be reliable. It is transcripts from a Congressional hearing, and articles that had previously been published in magazines. Purplebackpack89 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"appears to be reliable" - exactly the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 116 - page range needs en-dash, isbn? Y
• Ref 118 - no page reference.
• Ref 121 - see ref 59.
• Ref 122 - no page reference.
• Ref 123 - year range needs en-dash, no publisher, no isbn, expect a space after Y
• Ref 124 - no page reference.
• Ref 125 - no page reference.
• Ref 126 - see ref 59.
• Ref 127 - no publisher, no publication date. Y
• Ref 128 - no page reference.
• Ref 129 - no page reference, consistent name formats.
• Ref 130 - (and ref 133 and 136) see ref 59.
• Ref 131 - no page reference.
• Ref 132 - what makes crmvet.org reliable?

Seems to be a good black history reference Purplebackpack89 23:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 134 - no page reference.
• Ref 135 - no page reference.
• Ref 137 - no page reference.
• Ref 139 - p. not just p Y
• Ref 140 - see ref 59.
• Ref 141 - no page reference, no isbn.
• Ref 142 - consistent name format.  Not done CMS
• Ref 143 - should that be "Press" instead of "press"? Y
• Ref 144 - what makes liberty-tree.ca a reliable source?

I've changed it to a reference from the Reagan Library Purplebackpack89 23:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 145 - volume and number information of periodical missing. Y
• Ref 147 - no page reference.
• Ref 148 - no publisher information, Bosnia isn't mentioned on that page either.

Changed it to a Bailey reference Purplebackpack89 23:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 149 - no publisher. Y
• Ref 151 - date format, red link. Y
• Ref 153 - dead.

Ref was changed days ago Purplebackpack89 23:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 155 - no publisher.

Done, so just Selected readings and Other websites to go to complete the first quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)