Wikipedia:Peer review/Territorial evolution of the United States/archive1

Territorial evolution of the United States

This article just appeared a few minutes ago, but I've been working on the research and the maps for the last four months. I'm hoping to quickly get this up to featured list candidacy, but of course a peer review would be useful as well, if only to see if that's the best name for the article. :) --Golbez 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I moved it. :P --Golbez 06:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you considering including outlying territories, such as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at present; the map is only of incorporated territories, which have a much different status from the unincorporated territories of the Philippines, Guam, etc. --Golbez 23:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the title should be Territorial evolution of United States incorporated territories then? The article seems just fantastic though. Great work! My only issue is the sparse nature of the text, but it is possible that that is unavoidable, given the nature of the article. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because only the incorporated territories are part of the United States. Puerto Rico, Guam, et.al. are not. And thanks. :) --Golbez 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then perhaps this should be explained at the head of the article? Defining exactly what you mean by United States? I just see that in the future it is possible that other persons might come around wondering where PR and Guam, etc. are with less friendly intentions ("You jingoistic American! You left off my homeland!", personal attack, personal attack, etc.). Hehe, what do you think of the idea of some sort of formal definition at the top of the article? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The main reason I didn't do it is, well, it's extra work. :P And also, few maps of the United States proper include those other areas. They are unincorporated territories, which makes them not an integral part of the United States. (Another issue - with the exception of the Philippines, those areas are going to be quite boring on a map. :P) --Golbez 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a great idea for an article. Kudos on the maps and the clarity. I wish you'd add some explanations as to why things happened. Why, for example, did the Nevada territory get widened? I'd genuinely like to know the story. Also, please reconsider your exclusion of the territories. List the historical facts, with the caveat that you aren't including the maps for them. They're part of the historical context of territorial expansion, too. Peirigill 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've started doing that for Guam, and adding more reasonings would be a great idea. Maybe I should have a different map, like a snapshot of the US at the time of the change, with a wider view for the uninc terrs... yeah... --Golbez 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything there... --Golbez 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably because the article has changed names since being nomed. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since neither the word 'evolution' nor the phrase 'United States' appears on that page in any meaningful fashion, I'd have to disagree. --Golbez 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's possible the program is taught to skip articles under a certain nominal length, like the redirect that it would find at the original link. No need to get upset about it. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]