Talk:Virginia Conventions

message: I've expanded the convention sections based on research in sources accumulated over the past year. I cannot yet find in depth accounts of the 20th century activity after the unlimited Convention of 1902. It may be that a survey of Richmond Times-Dispatch microfiche may bring some additional information. I noted by happenstance in searching for a photo of the presiding officer of Virginia's Limited Convention of 1945, that a proposed biographical article on John J. Wicker, Jr. was dismissed from Encyclopedia Virginia because he was not considered notable, dismissed with a dismissive characterization of him as a self-important "muckety muck". More research is required to be exhaustive, but I believe that the article now satisfies the requirements of the general reader for an encyclopedia article.
Any contributions to advance the article will be appreciated, especially suggestions related to style and format. For instance, I am sure that the Reference section should follow only one convention naming authors, but it is mixed, in part for the convenience of copy and pasting links for author names. I will continue to make attempts to copy edit on my own, as well as to follow the suggestions of other editors with contributions. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, VH, I just created the Wicker article for you. I'm not exactly familiar with the EncyclopediaVirginia notability guidelines, but, being a member of the state legislature is all that's needed per WP:NPOL. On a separate note, I'm extremely impressed with the work you've done so far on this article. Not sure how I missed it until now. Poor coverage of Virginia political history is one of the main reasons I got involved as a Wikimedia contributor, and it's always great to have people of your background/expertise. I hope to provide some more in-depth input moving forward. Rockhead126 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded convention sections 

message: Note that at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria we have the following criteria:
1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as  is optional.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. 
Of course, the goal is for articles to advance in their assessment to good article (GA) status. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class criteria 

message: A peer review is begun at Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia Conventions/archive1.  Editors are invited to contribute. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  for the Constitutional Conventions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: This is especially important in each section as the article becomes less reportorial and more summary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to "what led to the convention being convened" above,  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Reportage describing convention cut, replaced with summary, article is now almost half of its previous page size.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, after a year's research, this is about all I've come up with. More contributions are needed, perhaps if someone will delve into the daily reportage of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The elements relate directly to Constitutional provisions tested in the Courts. But I'm open to moving the section to Virginia Constitution. The Constitutional Commission of 1969 in my lifetime was explicitly called to address the disparities between the 1902 Constitution and mid-20th century holdings of state and federal courts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, addressed in the new maps at the introduction.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Valley definition is partly addressed with the new maps at the introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Rewriting . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Paragraph transfer to Restored Government of Virginia . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text: . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Good idea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: ====Most global====
*I think the article is a bit underlinked; of course the quotes shouldn't usually have embedded links, and there are a lot of quotes, but here are some examples you could link: John S. Carlile, Wheeling, Virginia, Unconditional Unionist, Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, and perhaps a couple of county names.
:: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  for the Constitutional Conventions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: This is especially important in each section as the article becomes less reportorial and more summary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to "what led to the convention being convened" above,  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Reportage describing convention cut, replaced with summary, article is now almost half of its previous page size.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, after a year's research, this is about all I've come up with. More contributions are needed, perhaps if someone will delve into the daily reportage of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The elements relate directly to Constitutional provisions tested in the Courts. But I'm open to moving the section to Virginia Constitution. The Constitutional Commission of 1969 in my lifetime was explicitly called to address the disparities between the 1902 Constitution and mid-20th century holdings of state and federal courts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, addressed in the new maps at the introduction.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Valley definition is partly addressed with the new maps at the introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Rewriting . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Paragraph transfer to Restored Government of Virginia . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text: . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Good idea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: From Mike Christie

message: *I think the article is a bit underlinked; of course the quotes shouldn't usually have embedded links, and there are a lot of quotes, but here are some examples you could link: John S. Carlile, Wheeling, Virginia, Unconditional Unionist, Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, and perhaps a couple of county names.
:: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  for the Constitutional Conventions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: This is especially important in each section as the article becomes less reportorial and more summary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to "what led to the convention being convened" above,  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Reportage describing convention cut, replaced with summary, article is now almost half of its previous page size.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, after a year's research, this is about all I've come up with. More contributions are needed, perhaps if someone will delve into the daily reportage of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The elements relate directly to Constitutional provisions tested in the Courts. But I'm open to moving the section to Virginia Constitution. The Constitutional Commission of 1969 in my lifetime was explicitly called to address the disparities between the 1902 Constitution and mid-20th century holdings of state and federal courts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Most global

message: Some general comments from  at Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia Conventions/archive1 TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, addressed in the new maps at the introduction.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Valley definition is partly addressed with the new maps at the introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Rewriting . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Paragraph transfer to Restored Government of Virginia . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text: . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Good idea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments

message: --  Re: Linking, it's a general rule of thumb that only the first occurrence of a topic be linked, with the exception of a similar link in the lede, a caption or in an infobox, table/chart, etc. If it's a very important link, say for a president, a second link (aside from the lede, etc) may be used if the two similar links are far apart in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Galleries are now done. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking

message: Mike Christie posted a bit of wide ranging encouragement at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Virginia_Conventions/archive1, " I'd suggest fleshing out the subarticles first. Even if you don't get them to GA level, by the time you've finished deciding what contents they should have I think you'll be in a much better position to figure out what summary information is retained here. And if you do get some or all to GA level, this article will be a great deal easier to write (and you might have a Good Topic on your hands)." -- an interesting challenge.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: At Good Topic it says, A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though not all are featured articles). A good topic represents Wikipedia's quality-rated content by thoroughly covering all parts of that topic through several good articles that share a similar structure and are well-linked with each other. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good topic considerations