This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Massachusetts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Massachusetts has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello @ Cran32: What makes you think forestry is not economically relevant? Additionally this is not very detailed information. I was concerned we need more detail. 2 sentences is not sufficient for such a potentially devastating tree pest. Invasive Spices ( talk) 18 May 2022 (UTC)
You soi distant—I say, that's a good one—history writers perennially state the secondary and skip the fundamental facts.
When did Massachusetts become a state? I don't see that stated.
All I see is: In the insert at top, it was a province before statehood. Well, that'd be a legitimate fact if you stated when it became a state. Instead, what does the next item say? Massachusetts was admitted to the Union in 1788. It's a non sequitur. And it invalidates the provincehood fact, because you're not telling us when provincehood ended and statehood began. As it stands, you are saying it was a province until 1788. Is that true? If so, explain how, when the Declaration called us "free and independent states" in the 1770s.
I don't mind bringing up subtleties. But I am sick of complaining about fundamental omissions, dozens of Wikipedia articles in and dozens out. Tell us the year Massachusetts changed from a province to a state. If in 1776, state it. If not until admittance to the Union in 1788, state it. If the picture is more complex—e.g., we were all unofficial states until made official when admitted to the Union—state it.
Jimlue ( talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Trainsandotherthings: WP:UNDUE doesn't seem to pertain to this edit. How is UNDUE related here? Invasive Spices ( talk) 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The UMass Extension Fruit Program provides information to support growers.as in this edit. Also removing the anchor for UMass Extension Fruit Program instead of at least moving it above the section header makes the redirect less usable. Invasive Spices ( talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
[[]]
to it at the time).In 2020, the state legislature overrode...is especially odd and could be removed on that basis. However I would never suggest doing so because it's really a very controversial subject which is waiting for expansion and splitting. In this case I could split Agriculture in Massachusetts but I don't want to do so because I don't have enough stuff yet. It's still only two paragraphs which could be merged to one paragraph depending on one's preferences. But if you'll support my doing so, and will oppose deleting as too small a stub, I will do that now anyway. Invasive Spices ( talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.
not a license to include any and all information indiscriminately.Of course not. I'm not saying that. Invasive Spices ( talk) 2 October 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subjectwhich is what your edit did. Undue weight means disproportionate attention to a small aspect of the subject as a whole. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say this to you. Detail about cover crops is not appropriate for this article, as it is a very minor detail. It would be acceptable in a standalone Agriculture in Massachusetts article, because while cover crops in Massachusetts are a tiny detail as far as Massachusetts is concerned, they're a more significant part of Agriculture in Massachusetts.
You state there are so-and-so number of cities. Well, article "List of municipalities in Massachusetts", which you link to, states another number. A count of term city in its Type column agrees with its figure, not yours.
Whoever is wrong, fix it.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Massachusetts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Massachusetts has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello @ Cran32: What makes you think forestry is not economically relevant? Additionally this is not very detailed information. I was concerned we need more detail. 2 sentences is not sufficient for such a potentially devastating tree pest. Invasive Spices ( talk) 18 May 2022 (UTC)
You soi distant—I say, that's a good one—history writers perennially state the secondary and skip the fundamental facts.
When did Massachusetts become a state? I don't see that stated.
All I see is: In the insert at top, it was a province before statehood. Well, that'd be a legitimate fact if you stated when it became a state. Instead, what does the next item say? Massachusetts was admitted to the Union in 1788. It's a non sequitur. And it invalidates the provincehood fact, because you're not telling us when provincehood ended and statehood began. As it stands, you are saying it was a province until 1788. Is that true? If so, explain how, when the Declaration called us "free and independent states" in the 1770s.
I don't mind bringing up subtleties. But I am sick of complaining about fundamental omissions, dozens of Wikipedia articles in and dozens out. Tell us the year Massachusetts changed from a province to a state. If in 1776, state it. If not until admittance to the Union in 1788, state it. If the picture is more complex—e.g., we were all unofficial states until made official when admitted to the Union—state it.
Jimlue ( talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Trainsandotherthings: WP:UNDUE doesn't seem to pertain to this edit. How is UNDUE related here? Invasive Spices ( talk) 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The UMass Extension Fruit Program provides information to support growers.as in this edit. Also removing the anchor for UMass Extension Fruit Program instead of at least moving it above the section header makes the redirect less usable. Invasive Spices ( talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
[[]]
to it at the time).In 2020, the state legislature overrode...is especially odd and could be removed on that basis. However I would never suggest doing so because it's really a very controversial subject which is waiting for expansion and splitting. In this case I could split Agriculture in Massachusetts but I don't want to do so because I don't have enough stuff yet. It's still only two paragraphs which could be merged to one paragraph depending on one's preferences. But if you'll support my doing so, and will oppose deleting as too small a stub, I will do that now anyway. Invasive Spices ( talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.
not a license to include any and all information indiscriminately.Of course not. I'm not saying that. Invasive Spices ( talk) 2 October 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subjectwhich is what your edit did. Undue weight means disproportionate attention to a small aspect of the subject as a whole. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say this to you. Detail about cover crops is not appropriate for this article, as it is a very minor detail. It would be acceptable in a standalone Agriculture in Massachusetts article, because while cover crops in Massachusetts are a tiny detail as far as Massachusetts is concerned, they're a more significant part of Agriculture in Massachusetts.
You state there are so-and-so number of cities. Well, article "List of municipalities in Massachusetts", which you link to, states another number. A count of term city in its Type column agrees with its figure, not yours.
Whoever is wrong, fix it.