Talk:History of Pittsburgh

Typo?

Is the misspelling of "extremely" a typo or sic?--Thiseye 00:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sic. Haven't put in Sic because 17th century spelling is notoriously variable, and I didn't think Sic was necessary. Tomcool 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Pittsburg page, is:

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, whose official "federal" spelling of its city name was "Pittsburg" from 1891 to 1911.

Is 1891 accurate? Why is it not repeated in other articles?

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Name of Pittsburgh, 1891 to 1911 is accurate for an official spelling. Spelling of the city's name (and most everything else) in the 18th and 19th centuries was variable. I myself haven't paid the issue much attention. There are those who do, though. If you want to further check into it, you could look up the main contributors to the Name of Pittsburgh article. Tomcool 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"descended the Allegheny"

what does the text "descended the Allegheny" mean? did they travel downstream until its terminus, or just travel along it? was it I'm not sure if I can make a suggestion for an alternative, which is why I ask here. also "by summer" to me suggests a gradual movement, not a single expedition Pudowski 00:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That expedition got as far as the Venango area, where some spent the winter, and then built Ft. Machault the next summer. The rest returned to Montreal. I'll try to reword it so it's clearer. Tomcool 14:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

From my quick skim, there is a lot of helpful information here and it appears to be well-sourced. Therefore, I gave it the highest rating without starting up any nomination processes (B-class). It looks like it is definitely on the way toward Good Article status, though you may wish to draw in more editors to provide a more diverse background of information. It appears that the majority of edits to this article have come from a select few editors. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, of course. Cheers! --Thisisbossi 04:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Rating

I reviewed and passed History of Pittsburgh for GA Class. This article is very through and has an accurate history of Pittsburgh from its beginnings through the present day with well cited sources. It reads very well and is easy to find information within. Only recommendations I give is to keep it up to date in the present day section as new events occur. NW036 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Assessments

Updated Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania assessments to reflect new GA status. – Paschmitts 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made minor corrections throughout the article as well. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in April. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. The last section about the current history of the city would benefit with more expansion. 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 history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

History article

Here's an article detailing some of the lesser known events in the city's history. Perhaps some can be incorporated into this article. [1]--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1936 Flood

Any thought of incorporating events from the 1936 flood into this article? There is already a Wikipedia article out there, so it shouldn't be too difficult... ClarkBHM (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)