Talk:Adams-Onís Treaty/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Russell D. Jones (Anything else?) |
imported>Roger A. Lohmann |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Thanks, Roger. On which page do you not get the connection to Oregon Territory: [[Adams-Onís_Treaty/Draft|article]] or [[Adams-Onís_Treaty/Related_Articles|related articles]]? [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 13:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | :Thanks, Roger. On which page do you not get the connection to Oregon Territory: [[Adams-Onís_Treaty/Draft|article]] or [[Adams-Onís_Treaty/Related_Articles|related articles]]? [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 13:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I was able to confirm the Weeks reference but I have no access to the Cash source. These citations were added by the original author whose research I trust. Also added some more related articles. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | :I was able to confirm the Weeks reference but I have no access to the Cash source. These citations were added by the original author whose research I trust. Also added some more related articles. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough. The (physical) link is fine; This is a conceptual loose end. My question was (and is) how does one get (logically) from a treaty concerning Spain and the southeast to the Oregon Territory? That seems to me to be a (logical) stretch and I think the link should be deleted. Is there some reason not to? I still don't see one. I'm not aware that the state of Florida or the Florida colonial administration had any Oregon connections. (It looks like this may be the physical artifact of a logical or conceptual connection that occurred to the original author on the fly but which never got realized in the article; as such, it remains an obscure loose end and I'm going to delete it. If there is some reason it should be there, it can be put back in. | |||
[[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:10, 8 August 2009
Approval
Did this one slip through the net?
- Never mind I just noticed the date is today. Chris Day 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Approved
Congratulations Richard and Russell for Approval of Version 1.0! D. Matt Innis 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What about adding some sections to the text?
This might help the reader to quickly find out about the main points. --Daniel Mietchen 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Chris Day 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Approval of Draft Revision?
The draft of this article has been substantially reorganized and it appears nearly ready for approval as a revision (I assume it will be 1.1?) I've made a few small additional edits, but nothing of a content nature, so I intend to recommend it. First, however, the two footnotes need to be fleshed out more fully. The entry by Weeks on the Bibliography page is for a different work/edition. Cash, 1998 appears to be the one listed in the biblio. Can anyone confirm that? The Parent Topics on the related pages seem awfully general. There is an existing stub on Diplomacy so I added it. Why are West Florida and East Florida included as Related Topics, and not Alabama, Arkansas, which are both explicitly mentioned in article or book titles? I don't get the connection to the Oregon Territory at all. If we can get these few things squared away (either eliminated or clarified), I will be ready to recommend the approval of this revision. Roger Lohmann 01:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Roger. On which page do you not get the connection to Oregon Territory: article or related articles? Russell D. Jones 13:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was able to confirm the Weeks reference but I have no access to the Cash source. These citations were added by the original author whose research I trust. Also added some more related articles. Russell D. Jones 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough. The (physical) link is fine; This is a conceptual loose end. My question was (and is) how does one get (logically) from a treaty concerning Spain and the southeast to the Oregon Territory? That seems to me to be a (logical) stretch and I think the link should be deleted. Is there some reason not to? I still don't see one. I'm not aware that the state of Florida or the Florida colonial administration had any Oregon connections. (It looks like this may be the physical artifact of a logical or conceptual connection that occurred to the original author on the fly but which never got realized in the article; as such, it remains an obscure loose end and I'm going to delete it. If there is some reason it should be there, it can be put back in.
Roger Lohmann 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)