Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Chincoteague, Virginia/archive1

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 10:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

History of Chincoteague, Virginia edit

Featured article candidates/History of Chincoteague, Virginia/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… well, many of you may know I fell ill this summer. Although I've thankfully recovered fully, I did spend several weeks at home afterwards. My first trip that was not business, in late August, was to meet my brothers and their families for a few days in Chincoteague. It was a very pleasant five days, and while there, I had the idea … here is the result. Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda:

I like the article with personal motivation and missed the peer review. Only minor points:

In the lead: if Native Americans is linked, shouldn't there be a piped link to Colony of Virginia? "Destination" sounds vague, - island and town?

Isn't there a pipe to Colony of Virginia? I've played with the first sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find one in the lead and could imagine it for "Virginia colonist". Like the first sentence now!

Setting and pre-European use: perhaps mention the island first, especially as there was no town for a long time? - map also later, image of nature could go here?

Thank you for swapping the images. You know would have voted against a left one right under the header ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misty and filly Stormy, - moving story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done those things. That map is a bit awkward, it works best in the final section, which already has many images, but it needs to be in the article fairly early or I will get geography complaints.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a geographic map of the area? I remember the nice historic one in Yogo sapphire, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the best free map I was able to find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all addressed, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A clear, well-written and detailed article about one of Virginia's most interesting towns. I gave the article a full once-over and seen nothing that I feel needed updating or changing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I had the considerable pleasure of peer reviewing this article; I can't think when I enjoyed a peer review more. This is a delectable article, and in my view the current version meets all the FA criteria. It is hard to imagine how the subject could be better handled. Top-flight stuff – loud applause. – Tim riley (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for your work, and for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images review

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and there are no apparent format issues
All images appear to be in the public domain, and are properly licenced.

I missed the peer review and have not read through the article yet. On the basis of the images alone, this looks to be a likely pleasure. I will add general comments when I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will enjoy it. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Quadell

I wish I had more of substance to offer, but after reading the article carefully and checking for the usual nominee shortcomings, I can't find much to criticize. (It's as if the nominator had extensive experience with bringing article to Featured status, and he spent a great deal of time and care on the article over the last couple of months, and the article was peer reviewed and GA reviewed by two of the most diligent reviewers around... it's almost precisely like that.) Here are my paltry contributions.

I made some minor copy-edits, and all were simply wordings I thought slightly better, rather than error corrections.

This article says "one smuggler's ship was burned in the engagement known as the Battle of Cockle Creek, and another captured." Was the capture a part of the battle? If so, I would reworded it as "one smuggler's ship was burned and another captured in the engagement known as the Battle of Cockle Creek." But then again, the Battle of Cockle Creek article says that "two accompanying sloops were captured", so I'm not sure if there's a contradiction there.

It's complicated. The Union accounts of the battle mention two small boats captured and sent to Hampton Roads as prizes, the Southern accounts do not. But in any event, the ship I am referring to as captured was captured two days after the battle, the schooner S.T. Garrison, taken off Wallops Island. See p. 51 of Mariner.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added "two days later", to try to avoid any ambiguity. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the other facts about Chincoteague's growing publicity, the fact that it was mentioned in a Jeopardy! question feels really trivial (no pun intended), almost like a typical "In popular culture" factoid. Is it really notable?

As now two reviewers (one at the PR) have touched on that, I think it's dodgy enough to get rid of.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the very nice things you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this article is clearly FA-worthy. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: as I anticipated, this was a most engaging read. I have a number of comments, all relatively minor (some are merely recommendations). You will see from the edit history that I have made a few prose tweaks, though I'm leaving most of them for you.

Lead

Is there any date indicator that can be applied to the initial activities of the Native Americans?

I can't give an earliest date, but I gave an until.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph, the multiple short sentences create a somewhat jerky effect for the reader. Perhaps combine the second, third and fourth sentences?

I combined two of them anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Although a few people lived on the island by 1700" – "lived on ... by" → "were living on ... by"

Done.

"in the postwar years" – perhaps clarify you mean the post-Civil War years

I think the previous sentence makes it clear and a repetition of "Civil War" unneeded.

Last paragraph: I don't think "the" is needed before "seafood", and perhaps the first "major" could be "significant".

I think the "the" has to stay. Major changed.

I huff and puff at "significant". What does it signify? If two "majors" in close proximity won't do, then how about "Neither is important in the island's economy today"? Tim riley (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, with a slight amendment.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Chincoteague

I would clarify the "two islands" mentioned at the end of the section

Done.

Antebellum period (1776–1860)

First paragraph: was the "petition to repeal" successful?

Yes. Clarified.

"about age 100" might be common usage but it is not grammatically sound. Recommend "aged about 100".

Civil War (1861–65)

"Referendum on succession": shouldn't this be "secession"?

Nice catch.

We somewhat lose track of the fate of Whealton's mission. Were the confiscated goods returned.

Yes, clarified.

Passing comment: "800 inhabitants", yet only 135 votes in the referendum. A somewhat resticted ballot, then, which rather weakens the "near-unanimity" to which you refer, and offers an explanation as to why some islanders supported and fought for the Confederacy.

The source does not go into detail, other than discussing a few who supported or went south. It was clearly not a secret ballot. I've changed to "lopsided tally". The franchise was likely restricted to male landowners.

Postwar and prosperity (1865–1908)

"began to come to an end" is a bit cumbersome: "began to end"?

Fair enough.

My dictionary tells me the usual US style is "barbershop" (one word), against the BritEng "barber's shop".

Fair enough.

"Gas illumination arrived by 1900" – needs to be "had arrived" in view of the "by". Alternatively, "arrived in 1900" is more consistent with the rest of the sentence.

Causeway and carnivals: Chincoteague takes its modern form (1908–46)

Not sure of the MOS status of this rather elaborate section heading. Simple would be: "Entering the modern era (1908–46)"

OK

"By 1900, the residents began to seek to be incorporated as a town". It has to be "In", not "By", in this construction

Rephrased.

"Almost all" used twice as a sentence opener, in quick succession
Presumably John B.Whealton has some family connection with the earlier Whealton? Perhaps worth a mention.

Mariner does discuss this, and the Whealton family tree is a bit uncertain due to multiple people with identical names. John B.'s father was also named John, but was not the John Whealton of the Civil War expedition. So it is not a direct descent anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by some of the fifth paragraph. The parenthetical "the auction began later" – later than what? Then, "Fifteen thousand people attended..." – attended what? I am guessing a carival and pony swin, but the nature of "the 1925 event" needs to be more specifically defined.

Pretty much. I've clarified. It doesn't sound as though things were as organized in 1925 as they later became, but the "festivities" I mention included pony races, foot races, swimming races, and baseball, plus food.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked this a bit more, as I think it still needed clarifying. Retweak if I've got it wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any explanation for the population decrease (3295 in 1910, 2130 in 1930 - that's more than a one-third drop?

My fault, the 1930 figure is not for the whole island, but only the town.

Misty and changes (1946–62)

It's a nitpick, but I wonder whether all of the incidental detail is really necessary, e.g. "Staying at the bed and breakfast of Miss Molly Rowley on Main Street", and the naming of the grandchildren.

The B&B still exists, and the grandchildren are characters in the novel. That's also why Beebe is given his nickname. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

("Henry fell in love with the horse..." Hmmm, I'll say no more)

Shall I get the horsey set to opine? :) --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wyle Maddox doesn't need naming in full twice in the paragraph.

Because of "Maddox Boulevard" in that sentence, I felt the need to give him his first name a second time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a possible contradiction in "many young people left Chincoteague in the years after World War II" and "The town remained busy and prosperous in the postwar years".

I guess enough young people were leaving that they were concerned. I doubt there was even television there in the 1950s, though, and it would have been very isolated before the bridges to the Eastern Shore were built.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth paragraph: I would reverse the order of the penultimate and ultimate sentences and slightly change the wording and organisation, thus: " When oyster parasites and overfishing combined to destroy the oyster industry in the 1950s, clams became the island's major industry. The Burton Clamming Company claimed to be the largest in the world, sending 1.3 million clams to market on a typical day in 1957."

Changed as noted below.

Tourist destination (1962–present)

"the local decline in oystering," – previously "Oyster parasites and overfishing combined to destroy the oyster industry"

Changed to "devastate".

I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught everything. Thank you for all your work on this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: See above note about one final tweak that I've done myself. All well, now; a soothingly untopical article which was a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the nice words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Full disclosure: I might be too involved to be a neutral reviewer, as I helped edit some sections a bit (reviewed horse stuff, mostly) but Wehwalt did the bulk of the editing, and I fully support this article as an FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had my say at PR and was happy with it there, but it has been further strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.