Talk:History of Louisville, Kentucky

Explanation of new sections

I've set up the article into sections by century. I'm not sure if this is the best idea really, consider History of New York City, History of Boston, History of Miami - every one has a different scheme going (and the last one is a FA). But for now let's see how it goes. I am thinking there will be 3 subsections to each section except the earliest, the 19th century will eventually have a subsection for Louisville during the Civil War, I think. But since that isn't written yet, I am not sure how much space it will need. Anyway, that's where I'm going with all of this... --W.marsh 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This construct looks pretty good to me. We can always make adjustments later if needed. By the way, I am working with a Civil War author to create a Creative Commons article re: Louisville during the Civil War on his website, and a subsection and article here can be built from that. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Resource

Just found this: [1]. It's a (I think) fully online book about Louisville during WW2. I don't have time to read it right now, but I thought I'd mention it here... seems like a good resource. --W.marsh 00:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Selected article for Portal:History

After investigation and asking questions, it looks like there would be nothing impeding us from making this article the next Selected article at Portal:History. Since the portal isn't being run very tightly right now, we could possibly end up with our article on the page for more than the standard one-month period. If anyone would like to help write a "blurb" for this article to use on the page, please add your proposal for the blurb to this section. I will probably give it a try myself shortly, but if others want to beat me to it, that's fine and dandy. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Antebellum

The following clause doesn't make sense to me: "However, most cargo was still sending much more cargo downstream in the early 19th century...". Is there a word askew in there somewhere? By the way, thanks W.marsh for all the new content. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll fix it. I've finally gotten some energy to work on this article... hoping to get through the 19th century today... using Yater's book as a reference. I'm a bit worried about over-citation of it, though it is the definitive work to be citing. --W.marsh 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. I am specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. Unfortunately, as of December 19, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria. The article was passed as a GA back in 2005, and since then, the criteria have changed. The article currently lacks sources throughout the last half of the article. Go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great. Additionally, the lead needs to be expanded to several paragraphs to better summarize the article. For these reasons, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually doubt any of the claims? Or have you not read them and just want more references to serve as decorations? I see nothing to suggest you did more than count the number of superscript blue numbers. --W.marsh 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article could probably use a few more inline citations, but I totally agree that the article's lead is not at GA-level. Its delisting isn't a big surprise to me. At any rate, I've put out a WikiProject Louisville alert to let everyone know about it and maybe we'll see some work done here soon. I myself don't have much time for Wikipedia right now -- I wish I did, especially for helping to fix this very important article for Louisville. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to work on it if it's just to be reviewed by people who apparently don't even read the article, just skim for number of references. --W.marsh 17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no rush required. Besides, the lead is indeed problematic, so the delisting is appropriate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)