| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers the massacre by Natchez Indians on French colonists in the colony of Louisiana in 1729. It was a significant event that shaped much of the history of France's colonization of North America, as well as that of the continent's indigenous peoples. I would like some suggestions on how to further improve this article in the wake of its very smooth GA review, and I want to know whether or not it could have a shot at FAC after a few improvements.
Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Generally, this is a concise, well written article, so I see no major issues. Here are a few thoughts and suggestions, mostly regarding the structure:
- Although "massacre" would obviously imply that the vast majority of the people killed were French, the phrase "More than 240 people were killed in the subsequent revolt" in the lead section seems just a bit vague, mostly because it's a passive sentence. Perhaps something like "During the subsequent revolt, the Natchez killed more than 240 people, most of them French males," but if you can clarify who they killed specifically (were they all colonists? Did they kill any other native persons?) that would be even better.
- To form a more chronological narrative of the events, the sentence beginning with "On the morning of" would probably best fit after the sentence ending with "voiced the warnings".
- Along those same lines, although you've clearly tried to stick to the subject at hand (always a good idea), I think this would very much benefit from some kind of background section. Your lead section mentions a few things not included in the body of the article. Remember that the lead should summarize the main points of the article, not provide the background for the event. So the article itself should include the background, which would include:
- That the groups had lived alongside each other for ten years peacefully.
- That Chépart demanded land for his plantation, which allegedly influenced the Natchez to attack.
- Any history of prior violence between the two groups, and how this might have factored in the style and preparation of the attack, including your information about the Natchez borrowing guns.
- Whatever section it ends up in, the information about Marie Baron Roussin should probably be included next to the information about Dumont's portrayal of the events.
- The "Conspiracy" section, I think, is misnamed. It implies that there actually was a conspiracy, when the text suggests that the idea of a conspiracy was probably fabricated by Périer anyway. I would probably merge this section with the "French response" section below it, since much of it indeed is the French response to the massacre. Alternatively, you could merge some of the information about the depiction or portrayal of the events with the "Legacy" section.
So basically, the information you have is perfectly fine, but you might need a bit more to fill in some background, and a few of the sentences could probably be shifted around to create a clearer structure. To clarify, here's how I might structure the article to best fit the information and content that you have:
- Lead
- Background
- Attack
- French response
- Legacy
Otherwise, good article, best of luck with it down the line. Runfellow (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)