Talk:George Rogers Clark/GA1

GA Review

I'm beginning to review this article now. Once complete, I'll be back with a list of necessary improvements if it warrants any. --Banime (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am online most days and will work quickly to resolve any issues you may encounter. I look forward to your review! Charles Edward 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll alos be looking in to see how this is going, as GRC is a big deal around these parts.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

In my initial readthrough, I checked for the basic problems. The article contains reliable sources, the topic is not treated in an obviously non-neutral way, there are no cleanup banners, and it is not about a current event. Every project that it is a part of has rated it B-Class. When reading the discussion page I noticed it was a target of some vandalism and checked out the history. Article seems pretty stable now and there are not any edit wars to speak of. What little that may be considered "vandalism" usually are just small word changes by editors. I see no reason for a quick fail, and I will now go much more in depth in my review. --Banime (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Complete Review

I'm back with my complete review. I will use the GA Criteria as a guideline for my review to help with making improvements and focusing on what needs fixing. I also made a few of the fixes like grammar and some NPOV word choice and broken or mistaken references myself, which you can see by checking the edit history.

Well Written

• Throughout the article the term American Indians was used, I changed it whenever I found it but if I missed any, make sure it says Native Americans. American Indians is an old fashioned term and could even show a non-NPOV.
  • I do not see any more uses. I personally do not have a preference. Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• The introduction provides a nice little synopsis of the article and hits the major points, good job. It does seem a little light per Wikipedia:LEAD, though. Expansion can only improve the article. Also, see below about citations.
  • I have added a bit more. Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it is improved. I've also edited it a bit more. --Banime (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Illinois Campaign section: Clark participated in several skirmishes against raiders. What raiders? Perhaps the term "these raiders" would fit best, but it is vague enough that I cannot tell.
  • clarified Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also in that section: This daring winter expedition was Clark's most notable achievement and the source of his reputation as an early American military hero. Slightly NPOV, also citation is needed for claiming something is someone's most notable achievement and source of his reputation.
  • I changed it up a bit and added more info to try and make it more clear - Clark's men were the ONLY american soldiers in the Nortwest. Then, Kentucky was 1000 miles from the Washington's army and Kentucky was just a side thought it the war. It was more of a private Viriginia operation, that Washington hardly supported with money or men. That is why it is notable, he did it all without any support. And it was so important because it created a diversion and kept the Indians away from the colonies, and instead they focused on Clark and Kentucky. I have added a couple sources also that summarize all this. Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Life in Indiana section: I added US$ to the first currency value in the article, as it is possibly unclear since there could have a been a number of currencies in use at this point in history. If you think this is unwarranted feel free to discuss, but it follows Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Currencies
  • Yeah, I don't know what they used. On the frontier it was probably either Spanish or French coin, but it is likely calculated in US dollars. But.. This was decades before the bank of the united state's, etc.. I don't really know what you put for that? Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I also agree, and believe that that's the closest we can get to an accurate present-day estimate. If any other better evidence presents itself then add it into the article. --Banime (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Return to Kentucky section: Clark never married and had no verifiable romantic relationships, although a family tradition held that he had once been in love with Teresa de Leyba, sister of Don Fernando de Leyba, the Spanish Governor of Louisiana. I'm not really quite sure what that means, its quite unclear. It might even be able to be removed altogether, as the next sentence says his family noticed his sadness over his lost love. Clarification is needed.
  • I clarified. In his writings, there is no record of anything. But is his families writings they talk about it. I am leaving it because I believe it is notable - it is unusual for a man in that era to not marry. Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Legacy section, I made the schools into a list like the places and statues lists.
  • Looks good Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the External Links section: the 2nd link is broken.
  • Could not locate a replacement, so I deleted it. Charles Edward 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Overall there were a few red flag words which I changed or removed. Most of the "some say" type words are addressed in the next section of my review below.

Factually accurate and verifiability

• In the introduction, a few things need citations. Usually the introduction doesn't need citations as long as the claims are clarified or cited later in the article, however I couldn't find the following: the preeminent American military officer on the northwestern frontier during the American Revolutionary War. How is he the preeminent military officer? Maybe the leading general officer? Or one of the main generals? Later in the article it shows his promotion to brigadier general, if there was a source saying he was the only general in the Northwest then it could be applied. Also the celebrated capture of the two forts, and his nickname as "Conquerer of the Old Northwest" was used both here in the intro and again in a later section without a citation. Who celebrates it, and who gave him that nickname or continues to call him by it? Citations are needed.
  • I have changed the wording in the lead to better reflect what is stated in the article. I have also made tried to make the value of the campaign more obvious to the reader, and included refs showing source that say he was "Conqueror of the Old Northwest". If you blow up the image of the bust of Clark, you can read "Conqueror of the Northwest Territory" in the inscription. Charles Edward 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Revolutionary War section: Clark was given 500 lbs of gunpowder to help defend the settlements and was appointed a major in the Kentucky County militia. Needs a citation. Even though it is not quite a statistic I believe it could be questioned enough to require a citation.
  • added ref Charles Edward 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Final years of the war section: Although he had not been present at the battle, Clark, as senior military officer, was severely criticized in the Virginia Council for the disaster. Citation?
  • added source Charles Edward 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Same section: Because the British ceded the entire Northwest Territory to the United States in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, some historians have credited Clark with nearly doubling the size of the original Thirteen Colonies by seizing control of the Illinois country during the war. Which historians? Citation. "Some historians say" is usually a warning flag without a citation.
  • This really is true, unfortunately. There are two schools of though on it. Most books mention both options. Either what he did had a big impact, and gave the delegates a big bargaining chip in demanding the northwest - or - it didn't make much difference because the British would be forced to give it up anyways. I've changed the wording to sound better and given a source. Charles Edward 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again: For this reason, Clark was nicknamed "Conqueror of the Northwest", and his Illinois campaign—particularly the surprise march to Vincennes—was greatly celebrated and romanticized. By whom? Citation. Without citations this is all not entirely NPOV - also I mentioned this earlier in the introduction analysis.
  • removed this particular statement, It is mentioned earlier now by the first person to call him that with a ref. Charles Edward 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Later years section: It was rumored, most notably by James Wilkinson, that Clark had often been drunk on duty. Needs a citation that this was actually rumored, otherwise it is not NPOV. Anyone could put "it was rumored that this guy was awesome" or "it was rumored that he killed children" to affect the neutrality of the article. "It was rumored" is also another red flag type phrase, especially without a citation.
  • source is teh ref on the end of paragraph. I duplicated it to also be on the end of that sentance

• In the Legacy section: I fixed the reference for George Rogers Clark Elementary School of Chicago, it linked to the wrong page and was named the wrong name.

Broad in its coverage

• This article is sufficiently broad for a GA and covers every major aspect about George Rogers Clark.

Neutral

• In the Later Years section: The campaign ended ingloriously seems to be putting words into the readers head. Tell what happened then let the reader decide if it was "inglorious."
  • Changed Charles Edward 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I already addressed some NPOV concerns in other sections, such as Native Americans, and the red flag words such as "it is rumored" and "some say" and "the campaign ended inlgoriously", etc.

Stable

• Small vandalism concerns, but they are no more than one or two words here and there. They have not been common recently, and the article seems stable enough for a GA. There are no back and forth edit wars.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• The images are used well and are all public domain or have been released under a free license.

Decision

Overall the article had some well written parts. The main concerns are listed above, most notably the NPOV and Citation concerns. I will put the article on hold for about a week or until these concerns are addressed, then make the final decision. I believe it can be improved sufficiently to attain GA status. Also, I welcome more comments from other reviewers to help with the article's improvement. Any comments or questions, please ask and we can discuss together. Good work so far. --Banime (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review! I will begin to work through the list to address each point. Thanks! Charles Edward 18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have went through the list and addressed most of your concerns. Please look them over when you have a chance and let me know if you suggest anything further, or would like a followup on anything else. Thanks again for your review! Charles Edward 02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A few final things

• I noticed immediately the citation #17 was messed up. It could just be the format or the page itself, please doublecheck that and fix it. You also cite page 394 of the same source earlier so I'm not sure if you were trying to use the same one or a different one.

• In the Revolutionary War section: Clark was just twenty-four years old, but older men like Daniel Boone, Benjamin Logan, and Leonard Helm looked to him for leadership. Were these men under his direct command? When I looked at it again it seems unclear.

• Also I made a few more edits here and there. Once these things are fixed, I'll do a final readthrough to ensure all GA criteria are met. Good work so far on all of your previous fixes, I looked through all of them and they have all been addressed. --Banime (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the formatting on the ref, and also clarified the statement to include that the men were the older settlers. Charles Edward 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

After my final readthrough, I have passed this article as a good article based on the GA Criteria. All issues that I had above have been corrected and improved upon.

To continue improving this article for FA status be sure to check out GA vs FA criteria. Continue improving the prose of the article, as that is often very difficult and one of the main reasons FAs get failed. Keep up all the hard work that has been done so far on this article and I'm sure one day it can reach FA. For some tips and pointers on prose you can also check out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a for example, or a number of other good guides on wikipedia.

Finally, I would like to congratulate all editors on this good article. I'd like to personally thank Charles_Edward for his hard work in addressing all of my concerns. I'd also like to take the time to encourage all involved in this project to check and see if there are other GA nominations that you can review in order to help out. --Banime (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)