Talk:Great power/Archive 5

message: To my (& I'm sure everyone else's) disappointment the PR page seems to be attracting next to no comment.  This is rather a pity - external input would have been handy.  As it is, it seems like we will have to do it ourselves.  
I think that it might be useful if we all made a note here of our thinking as far as the future direction of this article goes.  What needs adding/changing, prose, sourcing, layout, etc, etc.  Perhaps then we can get some sort of direction worked out for the short-medium term.  Just stick your thoughts in a subsection, your user name as the title.
So then, what do we all think?
Xdamrtalk 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I haven't been working here, maybe I'll get time on the weekend. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Xdamrtalk 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: scholar.google.com is very useful. JCScaliger 22:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mini Peer review

message: * Pictures - is there any scope for adding them?  General shots of the UN, seats of world power (eg Westminster, US Congress, Bundestag), etc would add to the aesthetic appeal of the page.
* Prose - decent, but a copyedit would certainly be in order.  I think that we have to standardise on Great power or great power (or even Great Power, although I don't think that this is much good).  I favour the former - the capital is warranted as it is being used as a noun.
* Sourcing - the theory aspects of the article seem to be decently sourced (although I'd like to see the section verified, see Academic Peer Review below), but the past/present Great powers are not.  I think that we're concentrating far too much on looking for internet-based sources.  I think we need to face facts, sources of the quality that we require are simply not easily acessible on the internet.  Books and paper journals are the best bet.  As far as the use of sources go (this applies to the table format), I object to the citation of sources divorced from any sort of proposition.  The endless sources after the UK and France, for example; we are left with no idea what the source says, what proposition it argues.  
* Layout - the tables are pretty poor.  They look awful and fail to convey any real, in-depth information.  I've highlighted the problem with the tables and sources - I think that this problem is inherent with the constricted space offered by the table format.  The tables also seem to lend themselves to, for want of a better term, ill-considered edits.  I think that prosification is a must.  As far as the content of this prose goes (per Nobleeagle's note above), I think that we should be guided by the sources that we come across.  I don't think laying down a set format is useful at the moment.  Make a note of the facts that relevant sources see fit to mention.
* Academic Peer Review - Easier said than done, I know.  Unfortunately ours is the only wikiproject dealing with this area, so it's difficult to know where to look for help.  Perhaps we need to place emphasis on recruiting editors with a background in the subject to the wikiproject?
:Xdamrtalk 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: scholar.google.com is very useful. JCScaliger 22:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Xdamr

message: There were some sourced statements in Global power, which I merged to Great power since there was no objection after a month. You can see the pre-merged version here. Some of the stuff could come in useful later on. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global power 

message: It looks like the Major power article has been brought back from the dead, at least so far as Brazil is concerned, sigh.  Changes made to the Great power article, Template:International power, and Brazil as an emerging great power to deal with.  All cheerfully unsourced - ever get the feeling that you're banging your head against a brick wall?  I almost feel like throwing in the towel and going back to writing articles on South African history (my primary interest).
Xdamrtalk 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only user editing with his own personal brazilian bias is User:Jo%C3%A3o_Felipe_C.S. He has been editing a lot of articles to promote a false image of brazil. He's also very uncivil. Just revert his edits, he's already reported. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 08:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil

message: Some time ago I included the Ottoman, Moghul and Chinese (Qing dyanasty era) as historic great powers contemporaneous with the western powers mentioned - of which only the Ottoman has been retained.  But I feel the Moghul and the Chinese (Qing era) operated in their international context as great powers as their contemporaries like Austria, Prussia and the Ottomans did in their international context. The Chinese empire projected its power outside of China proper (Tibet and Xinjiang) and operated a system of tributary states in the east. If the Ottoman is included so should the Chinese (Qing dynasty era) and Moghul empires 58.84.126.240 05:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mughal and Qing can go to Historical powers. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 07:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Return of Western Centrism 

message: I'll be adding stuff to the rewrite throughout the weekend.  I'll assemble it in bits, so  if you think at any point that it looks POV/unsourced/full of mistakes just leave it for the time being, I'll be getting around to it.  Once the thing is finished then you'll all be welcome to rip it apart as you see fit :)
Xdamrtalk 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: How crazy is this.  The US was suffering after the Civil War.  Many men died, and the whole southern half of the nation was destroyed.  The US did not become a great power until it defeated Spain (a falling great power, cough, cough) in the Spanish-American War. Casey14 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US did not become a great power after Civil War

message: I've just come across an old version of this article that I userfied back in September — User:Xdamr/Great Power Rev X.  Quite a difference!  Good job all round, we've made huge strides in the past few months.
Xdamrtalk 01:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that old version is terrible.  This article has really improved! CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The good old days?

message: Yes it is done, I am deleting the tables... Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite is completed