 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | Fort de Chartres is a current nominee for WikiProject Illinois' Collaboration of the Fortnight Join in on the discussion about this nomination. |  |
 | Fort de Chartres was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: February 21, 2007. |
This article isn't awful, it just needs some work. Though it appears the primary editors affiliated with the original GA nomination are no longer active here this to-do will provide everyone with a starting point. To do as of 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A mcmurray 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A mcmurray 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
Page move?
editI nominated it as a good article, but I was wondering if this would better be called Fort de Chartres State Historical Site or Fort de Chartres, Illinois. Also might fix the first sentence to be better in context. —Rob (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think I prefer the current name. Because the fort is not a town, adding "Illinois" doesn't seem exactly right. As for "state historical site," that is the current identification, but the fort, of course, wasn't that for most of its history. The name as it is seems to be the most common identifier, so it seems appropriate. -- DavidH 14:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The recent first sentence rewrite really skewed things. The article titled "Fort de Chartres" is not focused on a state park, it is about the French fort built there in 1720. There is a now state park at that site, but its name is not simply "Fort de Chartres" and it certainly isn't the most important thing for the first sentence of this article. This article is focused on the fort(s) and their history, with some mention of the modern-day historical site. It's the same with almost every historic structure -- its article should focus not on the fact that something is now a museum or a preserve, but about what made it significant enough to become a museum or state park -- what it was. The Pallace of Versailles is now surley a French museum, but that's not what it was built for, and the name, and the intro to an article about it, should reflect that. The same is true of Fort de Chartres. I'm reverting for these reasons. DavidH 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Delisting
editI do not believe this article satisfies the good article criteria and will be delisting it if the concerns are not addressed in a timely manner.
Specifically:
Criteria 2b: "the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations is not mandatory, it is highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.[1] Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline."
- I do not believe the the website of the 42nd Royal Highlanders, Inc., of Lafayette, Indiana qualifies as a reliablie source simply by being in possesion of the fort hundreds of years ago. *Added note: Another source is a dead link as well.A mcmurray 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the site,
it looked reliable enough, and in any event is backed up by other sources. I fixed the dead link and moved them inline. I will however, be adding "more scholarly" sources in the near future.PreciousRoi (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the site,
- The lack of inline citations in an article with so many assertions of fact is certainly off putting as well, though not required, it is highly desirable. I would go so far to say I would never promote an article to GA without inline citations.
I have placed maintenance tags on the page. I will allow ample time for the primary editors and others to address my concerns. I have added it to my clean up to do list as well and will be bold, if I have the time. In the meantime if these concerns go unaddressed I will delist the article. Not to be a jerk but GA status should reflect fine work and I don't think this qualifies. A mcmurray 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
42nd Royal Highlanders
editmoved it to intext, I found the site to be reliable and consistent with other sources, as well as having information of a unique character (That of the British sent to occupy the fort). All of the "more scholarly" information I would have access to is from the perspective of the later settlers there and the French. PreciousRoi (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
B-class
editI think this is a little better than a "start"-class at the present time, and have recategorized it under WikiProject Illinois. I also enlarged a couple of the pictures...which look fine at 1200x1600, but if they look goofy under lower-res 4:3 change them back.PreciousRoi (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)