Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Grand Canyon area

History of the Grand Canyon area

Self nom. Been on peer review for a few weeks with all comments acted upon. Geology of the Grand Canyon area is already featured as well as my older stab at writing about the history of a national park, history of the Yosemite area. Note that this article covers a part of American history that is very poorly represented in Wikipedia (that's why there are so many red links). So, what else needs to be done to make this article FA? -- mav 02:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote, but there are quite a few one-sentence "paragraphs" which could do with being joined-up. Mark¹ 03:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There were exactly two such paragraphs. Now fixed. --mav 16:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great stuff. - Taxman 21:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
A few comments/questions – first, before the land was given to the US in 1848, was Mexico using it? Were there mexicans living there? Or was the place deserted except for the indigenous people living there? It seems strange that all those years passed from 1540 to 1848 with nothing really happening. Also, in the last paragraph of the Americans section, you mention that prospectors came in the 1870s and 1880s came to do some mining, but that they didn't stay. So why was it so tough for congress to pass the National Park designation? Why was there so much opposition as late as the 1910s? Finally, is there a date estimate on that split-twig figurine that you have an image of? That would be helpful too. --Spangineer ∞ 02:54, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

- None of the references I used to write this article mentioned any use after the late 18th century by Whites. Nor have I ever come across such information anywhere. In fact the most complete reference I used specifically said there was none at all. I imagine there were some undocumented cases of Whites passing through near the rim, but since those were not documented we don’t know about them. :-) I dunno why it was so hard to pass the legislation, but that would be an interesting to include if a source can be found. I will look for such a source. The figurine shown did not come with an age estimate, but other figurines have been dated and that information is already in the article. --mav 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - "Opponents such as land and mining claim holders" added. --mav 00:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing – is it not in the scope of this article to talk about the theories regarding the formation of the canyon in the first place? I know the geology article talks about that quite a bit, but let me know what you think about adding something here. --Spangineer ∞ 03:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

- A paragraph on that may be useful but this article is about the human history. --mav 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps a clarification of that distinction would be helpful in the lead? Would it be approriate to put a link to the geology article and a sentence on to the effect of "the geology article covers the history of the area before the arrival of humans"? --Spangineer ∞ 01:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    - Hm. I now see what you are talking about. But I think that the first sentence; "The known history of the Grand Canyon area stretches back 10,500 years when the first evidence for human presence in the area started." establishes that the meaning of history used in this article is the human history. There is also already a link to geology of the Grand Canyon area in the lead's second paragraph. I'd prefer this implied approach instead of a more jarring parenthetical one. --mav 00:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll defer to your judgment on that. Thanks for considering my suggestions. Support. --Spangineer ∞ 01:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support, detailed and readable historical article that meets the FAC criteria, support --nixie 00:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor quibbles: I'm uncomfortable with the heading "Caucasian exploration", since the race of the explorers doesn't seem to have much to do with their explorations. Also if Garcia Lopez de Cardenas thought the river was ten feet wide, it hardly qualifies as a 'great western river'. Mark¹ 03:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Caucasian exploration = to differentiate the pre-historic exploration by Native Americans. They were searching for the 'great western river' and having estimated it was only 10 feet wide were not very impressed (it is in fact much wider ; the great distance to the river makes it look smaller). --mav 04:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the article doesn't mention exploration by the natives, I don't see the need to distinguish them; nor do I see the need to group the Spanish and Americans together. The way I read the river part, it seems to imply that the reason they descended into the canyon was because they thought this was a 'great western river'. If not, that could perhaps be clarified. Mark¹ 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I'll see what I can do. --mav 17:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Great western river' bit nixed. Only one of the sources I used had that info so it is suspect. I kept the exploration section as is since that is a logical way to organize this article. 'Caucasian' was nixed in favor of 'Historic'. Hopefully that does not make things confusing. --mav 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mark ¹ 03:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Great article. Please could you address the following?
1. I would like the article to describe (albeit briefly) the evidence of human presence in the period 8500-2000 BCE.
2. The Activities section opens "New hiking trails, along old Indian trails, were established during this time as well." I am unclear as to which time is being cited here. And, as a style note, I think it is important for sections to be relatively self-contained.
--Theo (Talk) 15:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]