Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Southerland/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2022 [1].

Fort Southerland

edit
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the Duckport Canal FAC was archived due to inactivity, I was given a waiver of the normal two-week waiting period. So now follows a hopefully more interesting subject - a minor Confederate fortification in southwestern Arkansas. It's short, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be, although there is some confusion about the original name (spoiler: it's fairly likely that it's on the NRHP under the wrong name). Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "after a Union victory in the Little Rock campaign the previous year" - specify that this relates to the American Civil War?
    • Done
  • "and when beginning the Camden Expedition in March, decided to veer to the west and move through Arkadelphia instead" - don't think you need that comma after March (or if you do then you also need one before "when")
    • Removed
  • "the field of fire of the positions were" => "the field of fire of the positions was" (the subject of the verb is "field of fire")
    • Done
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now happy to support BTW if you had any spare time and fancied taking a look at this current FAC, your thoughts would be most gratefully received. If not, not to worry. Have a good day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, were you still planning to return here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look at the remainder of the article, and can't see any further issues. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (MSG17)

edit

Only two pieces of media in the article: a freely-licensed relevant image of the site as it currently (in relative terms) stands and a location map. Passed. MSG17 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

edit
  • Will comment, shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an expert on Arkansas in the war, but I have checked the indexes of Civil War Arkansas : beyond battles and leaders and The impact of the Civil War and reconstruction on Arkansas : persistence in the midst of ruin and none of them so much as mention the fort so feeling good that there's nothing much missing from the article. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any way to add a caption to the IBox? It's not exactly clear what we're looking at
      • Added
    • is there a reason for "An redoubt" rather than "a"?
      • At one point the adjective "earthen" had been in there, but I never fixed the syntax when "earthen" was removed
    • "is roughly oval- or bowl-shaped" kinda confused me at first read without considering the deeper explanation in the article. When it's not explained that the distinction is because two different sources say different things, it's confusing (at least to me) because it would seem obvious that something looked like-- in fact, surely it could be oval and bowl shaped... Is there any way this might be more elegantly phrased?
      • the source that calls it bowl-shaped also states that it is "roughly oval-shaped" within the same paragraph, and the oval shape is what's most commonly used, so I've simply removed the references to bowl-shaped
    • "After the Confederates retook Camden," perhaps add date or some sense of time?
    • Added
    • "but according to historian William L. Shea, are more accurately termed redoubts" my brain wants a comma after 'but', as well. Is that correct?
    • I'm bad with commas so I'll go with your gut instinct and add it
    • Is Shea's questioning of the accuracy for the same reason as Christ?
    • Shea just says "the accuracy of that name [Southerland] is questionable"
    • "It was constructed south of Camden and was" Might be some confusion here whether 'it' is Redoubt D or E. Worth clarifying?
    • Clarified
    • "move through Arkadelphia instead." instead of?
    • Have tried to clarify, although it may wind up making the sentence awkward
    • "In places, the field of fire of the positions was not properly cleared and enemy troops" would it be more accurate, perhaps, to say "the field of fire was limited by incomplete clearing"? Since my understanding of 'field of fire' is that it is the area that can actually be reached by weaponfire
    • Done
    • "Union supply trains were captured in the battles of" I think it might need to be made a bit more clear that by this point Camden was held by Union forces...?
    • Added
    • "The line of trenches connecting the redoubts" are these the same trenches that Union forces had been digging earlier?
    • Not entirely clear from Shea, so I've rephrased it to "A line of trenches ..."
    That's pretty much all I came up with, hopefully some of it is helpful. Pretty nice little article. Please go easy on me, it's been a while since I reviewed much of anything. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Starting on this now; hope to finish tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891: - How do the above replies look? Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    happy to Support at this point. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "five fixed positions were constructed." How does one construct a non-fixed position?
    • Removed "fixed" Would the hemp bales from the Siege of Lexington count as a "non-fixed position"?
LOL! Yes!
  • "Shea notes ... Mark K. Christ notes". Thesaurus time?
    • Reworded
  • "Redoubt D was actually known as Fort Southerland". Does "actually" add anything?
    • Removed
  • Suggest running Construction and Description together. It seems odd to have them separated by History. And there is a little overlap.
    • I've merged them together, which should resolve the overlap
  • "Fort Southerland was located on a hilltop". "was"? Has it since moved? Or perhaps the valley has silted up?
    • Reworded
  • "and fills a city block". I very much doubt this. Do you mean 'Made of earth, it is roughly 2,000 by 1,000 by 2,000 by 500 feet (610 m × 300 m × 610 m × 150 m), approximately the same size as a city block.
    • Done
  • Are these measurements from the outer edge of the ditches, the inner edge of the banks, or something else?
    • Checked Baker, Bearss, Shea, and both Christ sources and none of them are clear about exactly how this was measured
Bleh! Ok.
  • "as of 1993 there were several trees". Nothing from the past 30 years?
    • Not that I can find. Minor features like this generally only get attention when some sort of special event is occurring, like the NRHP nomination.
  • "The fort was well south of the city when it was constructed". Which fort?
    • clarified
  • Why is "Camden Expedition and modern history" one section?
    • Split the postwar stuff into its own section

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Can see no reliability or formatting issues in this short and sweet collection of references -- GTG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, given the innocuous nature of my source review I don't consider it necessary to recuse coord duties so will shortly be promoting this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fort_Southerland/archive1&oldid=1115742471"