Talk:Fort Yellowstone/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 21:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll review tomorrow. Initial template added below. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First tranche done. I'll put on-hold for now. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of work done, I've broken out new comments in a "tranche II" at the bottom for clarity. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

•  Done "Fort Yellowstone (initially established as Camp Sheridan (1886))" - could be restructured slightly to avoid the double brackets at the end.
•  Done "was established as a permanent U.S. Army post at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park in 1891." as written, it's ambiguous if it was previously a temporary post, or if it was simply established for the first time in 1891.
•  Done Worth linking the Department of the Interior, War Department etc. in the lead
•  Done "Fort Yellowstone facilities now comprise Yellowstone National Park headquarters and staff accomodations." - I think accommodations has two "m"s; I think it should also be "the Yellow National Park headquarters"? (unless it only has part of them). Similarly I suspect it should either be "The Fort Yellowstone facilities..." or "Fort Yellowstone's facilities..."
•  Done "and there was no real legal" - as written, slightly ambiguous what this means (clarified this a bit)
•  Done "under the leadership of Senator George Vest" - needs a matching comma after Vest
• "(Buildings 31 and 32)" - the article doesn't explain what this numbering refers to.
• "  Done The success of Army management of Yellowstone set a standard that was followed in 1891 by the posting of soliders " Note typo on soldiers.
•  Done "In addition, the hats used by the National Park Service rangers (Ranger Stetsons) are descended from the campaign hats originally used in Army uniforms of the time." - the bracketed bit is in the wrong place (i.e. it is the hat which is called a Ranger Stetson, not the ranger).
•  Done "During its 32 years" - repetition of 32 years (already mentioned in the previous sentence)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

•  Done I'd highlight the alternative Fort Sheridan name in the lead.
• "as park headquarters, which continues to this day." - As this could be being read now, or in a hundred years time (!), worth being explicit about the dating.
•  Done "Commanding Officers" section. It's an acceptable use of a list section, but I'd query whether it fits well in the middle of the article, as opposed to (e.g.) at the end?
• "Units assigned". I'd have thought that this might read better incorporated into prose (vice a list), particularly given that the shift from unit rotation to a volunteer detachment was a significant change for the fort?
•  Done "Facilities" - As per MOS:LIST I felt that this would work much better as regular prose, particularly given the need to break down into further paragraphs in places (e.g. the introduction paragraph, the material on building 49) and some of the additional history that could be incorporated about some of the locations.
•  Done "Images of Fort Yellowstone". Have a look at MOS:IMAGELOCATION and WP:Galleries; from this, I think these should be interspersed in the normal way into the text rather than as a standalone gallery.

* Working on the three above offline - Mike Cline (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 All the facilities prose is complete --Mike Cline (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

•  Done "Hampton, H. Duane (1972). How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our National Parks. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press" - given it is a reasonable sized book, it needs specific page numbers (or at least chapters) to support the citations.
•  Done "Although the National Park Service was created in 1916 and the U.S. Army initially withdrew from the park, the transition was caotic and the Department of the Interior was unable to sustain the control the Army had established. The Army returned in June 1917 and remained until the a more stable transition could take place in 1918 - Hampton" - this needs a proper reference at the end, including a page number. Note typo on "chaotic".
•  Done "p. 482-83" - should be "pp. 482-83", as there are multiple pages

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

•  Done "Fort Yellowstone was designated a National Historic Landmark on July 31, 2003." - this probably needs a cite (but is on the edge, given the GA wording!) (Already cited in infobox but included here as well)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• I think there's a bit more work to do be done, as the article is fairly succinct as it stands. I've done a bit of digging on-line, and I've found a few more sources that have relevant information on the Fort that should be (mostly) visible on Google Books:
• Fort Yellowstone, by Elizabeth A. Watry and Lee H. Whittlesey. Gives some more details on the Fort, its role in protecting/promoting tourism, the problems in actually withdrawing the military from the Fort, the cost of building the facilities, life as a soldier on the base,
• National Parks And the Woman's Voice: A History, by Polly Welts Kaufman has a couple of pages on the wives' experiences.
• Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged by Richard A. Bartlett, covers the death toll, including from the civilians on the camp, a secret code used by the army there
• Mountain Time: A Yellowstone Memoir by Paul Schullery explains a bit more about the building surge, the views of soldiers stationed there, some of the events in the 1970s
• You could also try Take Down Flag & Feed Horses by William C. Everhart; Historical Archeology of Tourism in Yellowstone National Park by Annalies Corbin, Matthew A. Russell; Searching for Yellowstone: Ecology and Wonder in the Last Wilderness by Paul Schullery; and Dispossessing the Wilderness by Mark David Spence.
• A copy of potential websites with furhter details include this and this.
• The article also needs a bit more on what happened to the Fort in the last (roughly) 100 years; I'm not sure what's been published here though, so feel free to say that it's just not known! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I can deal with this in the facilities re-write --Mike Cline (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Mike Cline (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• No unnecessary detail.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Neutral.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

•  Done File:Fort Yellowstone Circa 1910.jpg isn't correctly tagged. Although taken in 1910, it needs a justification for why it is free of copyright, as there's no evidence given for its publication etc. (see here for a helpful chart on this sort of thing. (License changed to {{PD-USGov}} as this image did originate from the NPS Yellowstone Public Domain image library)
•  Done File:FortYellowstone1895FJHaynes.jpg lacks a US PD tag, and the existing tag isn't supported by a date of death for the photographer. (Date of death added to Commons page)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Is it possible to get a map of the Fort? There are some done by the Parks Service, which might (I think...) be usable as a work of the US Federal government?

 Map now included, but still need to create and load up an annotated version. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 Annotated map now included --Mike Cline (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to say that I've cleaned the annotated version up a bit; if you think the old version looked better, though, feel free to revert, I won't be offended! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nom's comment, all good stuff, thanks. I have most if not all the sources suggested in my personal library including Hampton so page numbers and such shouldn't be an issue. Images license can be corrected easily. {{The article also needs a bit more on what happened to the Fort in the last (roughly) 100 years; I'm not sure what's been published here though, so feel free to say that it's just not known!}}. As with any large grouping of 100 year old buildings, there's been a lot of shifting usage, some demolition and many modernizations. All this is well documented in NPS papers. It may be difficult to discuss this in any detail without boring the readers. I'll see what I can do. There is an additional consideration in this article that I've tried to balance. This article is about Fort Yellowstone (the facility) and not the History of the US Army in Yellowstone which would encompass alot of material not necessarily associated with the Fort. It is something I continue to be concerned about. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by MONGO...
  • 1.) Please add a second paragraph to the introduction...the introduction needs to better summarize the article. A second paragraph would permit a brief summary of the major structures, when they were built, and the overall style of the structures. The details can be expanded in the body of the article. I also think the wording needs some major adjustments, and I might take another stab at this in a day or two.
  • 2.) Would prefer to see the images incorporated into the article rather than the expansive gallery we have now...if these images are already on a page at Commons, add a Commons hyperlink in the references section...
  • 3.) Concur that this isn't an article about the history of military management of the park, but about the fort itself, when it was built, by whom, in what style it was built, etc.
  • 4.) Many of these individual strutures have independent articles and should be wikilinked...I'll see what I can do.--MONGO 06:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 5. We have to try and watch out for image crowding and having text "sandwiched" between too many images...maybe we can move some images back to the gallery...I'll work on this matter this weekend.--MONGO 04:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note...article is coming together nicely. We may have to trim out some images for spacing issues if it isn't possible to do much expansion on a couple sections. Its okay to add galleries into sections to help with spacing, or as I have done to prevent crowding, inserted the code <br clear=all/> at end of sections for spacing. All images should "float" to non-px size unless the original image is too big a file format (something like that)...I adjusted the image of the cavalry riding into Yellowstone in 1886 to 150px for this purpose. Once a little bit more information is added to a couple of the more empty sections, I'll run through the refs and examine for other issues we may need to adjust for Manual of style standardizations.--MONGO 17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tranche 2

(as of rewrite) Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

•  Done "wood-framed buildings in what has been referred to as cottage-style with" - italics aren't needed here according to the MOS
•  Done "A second construction wave commenced in 1908 " - "A second phase of building commenced..."? (would avoid repetition)
•  Done "Many of the structures from the later construction period are now used as administrative offices, as a museum and visitor center or residences for National Park Service employees" I'd suggest "Many of the structures from the later construction period are now used as administrative offices, residences for National Park Service employees and as a museum and visitor center" (would put the specific at the end, rather than moving from the general, to specific, to the general)
•  Done "Yellowstone National Park is the world's first national park" - I'd suggest "was the world's" as the rest of the paragraph is in the past tense
•  Done "the U.S. Congress thwarted efforts" - if you use the verb thwarted, you'll really need to describe who they were thwarting, as it is quite a dynamic phrase. Alternatively, you could go for "the U.S. Congress blocked attempts to..."?
• "a few Colonial Revival style domestic elements, described by the army as "cottage style"." In the lead, the article gives the impression that these are two different styles.
•  somewhere this got reworded "The most prominent of which" - "The most prominent of these..."?
•  Done "(Bldg 1[13])." - citations need to go after the punctuation.
•  Done "originally the Bachelor Officers' Quarters (Bldg 1)" I'd advise explaining in the text what the building numbers are at the first mention. e.g. "originally the Bachelor Officers' Quarters; each historic building in the fort is assigned a official number, with the quarters being Building number 1 (Bldg 1)."
•  consistent with MOS now " a Sixty-man barracks" - "a sixty-man barracks" (I'm not sure if the MOS would prefer 60-man?) Same for Ten-bed etc. later
•  most sources use lowercase, therefore that is the style adopted Building titles - some are in Capitals, some aren't - unless there's a reason for this, the article needs to be consistent
•  Done "became known as Soap-suds Row " - italics aren't needed under the MOS; you could use ""; same for Pagoda, laying of the cornerstone etc.
•  Done " Only the hospital quarters building is extant as a private residence today." Suggest inserting "extant, being used as a..."
•  Done "with gable-on-hip roof with through-the-cornice dormers" - any chance of a wikilink here? (I'm not sure what a gable-on-hip roof is!)
•  Done "The Corps was responsible for road and other infrastructure construction within the park since 1883." - either "from 1883", or it needs to be "had been responsible... since 1883"
•  Done "which was build out of concrete" -"built"
•  Done "wasn't justified" - "was not justified"
•  Done "The last building contributed to Fort Yellowstone" - is "contributed" the right verb?
•  Done " there wasn't one" - as per above
•  Done "an Episcopalian missionary" - link Episcopalian?
•  removed some of the redundancy "Although most of the original cabins no longer exist, the practice of using remote ranger cabins for patroling the park continues today by the National Park Service rangers" - seems to repeat a bit from the previous section. Also spelling of "patrolling"
•  rewritten to improve clarity "One decision made by Captain Boutelle" - As written, unclear if his other decisions didn't, or if this was an example out of several
•  Done "Young's proposal wasn't acted upon" - as per above
•  Done " the Father of the National Parks once wrote: Blessings on Uncle Sam's Soldiers. They have done the job well, and every pine tree is waving its arms for joy" italics again
•  Done The footnotes need checking for full stops (e.g. " At the time, long wooden skis were called Snowshoes"); also note italics and capitalisation.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The lead is describing the physical bits about the fort, but doesn't cover the "Historical significance of the U.S. Army in Yellowstone" section. You've only got two paragraphs, so would suggest a third summarising this part of the article.
•  Done "which resulted in the Fort Yellowstone visitors see today." - you'll need to temporarise the "today" - e.g. 21st century. I'd suggest something like "which resulted in the architecture visible in Fort Yellowstone in the 21st century."?
•  Done "still exist today" - as per above
•  Done "This suggestion was acted upon and in 1889 the first non-native fish were stocked into Yellowstone waters, a practice that continued until 1955 and helped create the angling experience enjoyed in Yellowstone today." - "today" again. In the UK, this would have the conservation agencies up in arms! :)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• There are a couple of very specific statement that need references:
•  Done "Additionally, these were regular army units and required facilities to support normal army cavalry training as well as those necessary to administer the park."
•  Done "The initial wave of construction between 1891-97 was representative of typical U.S. Army posts of the period. The buildings were constructed from quartermaster general standardized plans, typical of western military posts of the era."
•  Done " Engineer facilities and landscaping were designed by Captain Hiram M. Chittenden U.S. Corps of Engineers."
•  Done "Most of these structures built by the Army do not exist today, but similar, more modern cabins are maintained by the National Park Service throughout the park."
•  Done "This suggestion was acted upon and in 1889 the first non-native fish were stocked into Yellowstone waters, a practice that continued until 1955 and helped create the angling experience enjoyed in Yellowstone today."

Indeed what seemed like a great idea in 1890 would not be so today, and fisheries experts all agree that the stocking had a lasting and detrimental impact on native species. That said, Yellowstone's history is ripe with well intentioned, but misguided attempts to "manage" wildlife in the park. The wildlife in the park today is nothing like it was in 1872 when the park was created. At that time is was, by today's experiences, a desolate place where it was very difficult for anyone to live off the land for any length of time. There just wasn't that much wildlife living on the plateau. It is a better place today because of man's intervention. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Most all the Army superintendents recognized that although the cavalry had been successful in protecting the park..."

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes, although note the point in neutrality below.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Fairly neutral; if this was going beyond GA, I'd expect to see a bit more on the problems of life in the Fort (the dissatisfaction amongst the troops stationed there, the high mortality rate etc.) but other than that, it reflects the secondary literature.

Agree, if we ever try to take this beyond GA, then there's a boatload of stuff available about army life in the park. Way more than can be summarized succinctly here. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Yes.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• The number of images is an issue. On my screen (not that unusual a layout) the History and Facilities sections are almost a solid wall of images on the right, generating serious white space on the left after the 1913 bit. And that's before the gallery sections. I'd strongly recommend cutting these back slightly. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 could take an image or two each, which would soak up most of them. The number of images isn't a science though, and I'd be happy to seek a third opinion at the GAR page if you disagree strongly! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@Hchc2009 - Again, all good stuff. Thanks Lots to do. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)