Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natchez Massacre/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 19:49, 8 November 2012 [1].

Natchez Massacre edit

Nominator(s): Jsayre64 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I published this article last December after starting it in my sandbox exactly a year ago. It has gone through major changes since then, mostly by Michaelmas1957 and myself. I have added two more images, polished the quality of the lead, and altered the names, orders, and content of sections as suggested in a very helpful peer review by Runfellow in August. I believe that the article now covers the historical event in a broad, comprehensive, and accurate fashion, addressing the causes and effects of the attack and citing several primary and secondary sources that explain exactly what happened. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First run through comments:

Be consistent with your citation style - you have a mix of three at the moment.
Legacy seems rather a short section. Chateaubriand's work is discussed in reasonable detail, but the other works are mentioned in the briefest form. Is there nothing else you can add here?
Chateaubriand saw the Natchez Massacre as the defining moment in the history of the Louisiana colony; this sentence is sourced to Le Page du Pratz and Dumont de Montigny, which the sentence also comments on. Do they describe Chateaubriand in this way - I think you could be tiny bit clearer in attributing the source of that sentence.
Historical controversy surrounding the Natchez Massacre concerns the question of whether the Natchez plotted with other major tribes of the region to plan a simultaneous attack on the French.; The final two paragraphs of "Background" were unexpected. Without mentioning there would be an attack, it launches into a discussion of whether the Natchez conspired with others to attack the French. I would perhaps move this below the "Attack" section. It might even be worth mentioning it as a relevant thing during the "Attack" section, and then combining the bulk of the material with the "Legacy" section (perhaps renaming "Historical interpretation") as it features a lot of later analysis.

Generally the prose looks great, but I will look through in more detail later. Comments are intended as suggestions only. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Have I adequately addressed your third bullet point and some other things I found? I will get to your other suggestions later. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the citation style, what exactly is inconsistent? Subtitles of books? (Or does that not matter?) Here's the most recent diff for the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably me being dumb :) but you haven't changed the text of the legacy section (as discussed in my third bullet)?? As to citation style; I see you took out the full length citations, looks a lot better. I'd recommend picking either title or author (you can disambiguate author by using (<year>) after their name if needed, and sticking to it. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Your third bullet is the one that starts with Chateaubriand.) Anyways, now I see what you mean about the page number citations; I was using the book title for some of them because, for example, the article cites two works by Dumont de Montigny. I will get to the rest of your suggestions later, maybe tonight. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think I've taken care of everything now. There wasn't that much to add about other fictional representations of the event. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having been over the article a couple of times, I'd say it all seems to be in order now. Are there any other issues needing resolution before this article can be promoted? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Fort_Rosalie_postcard.jpg: the details provided indicate that this image is currently in the Mississippi Archives, but not necessarily that they own copyright. Can you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The image description page links to this info. about the Cooper Postcard Collection (Mississippi Department of Archives and History), which says the images in the collection are in the public domain. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, but the current licensing tag says it was released by the archives, which doesn't appear to be the case - they seem to be saying it was PD for some other reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've changed the tag to {{PD-US}}. Good now? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support a well-written article deserving of FA status. 74.115.210.45 (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Attack: "and even placed in irons some of the men who voiced the warnings." I'm sorry, but I'm not 100% clear on what "placed in irons" means. Does it mean that they were put in iron chains, or in prison cells? Or does it have another meaning I'm not thinking of? Also, I'd put the "in irons" at the end of the sentence for prose purposes.
The em dashes in this section violate the Manual of Style. To fix them, all you have to do is make them unspaced, or switch them to the smaller en dashes; either format is acceptable.
"More than 20 years after the massacre, Dumont de Montigny published one of the key histories of the revolt." This is currently sourced to Dumont de Montigny, which I'm not comfortable with. I'd rather have a statement from a third-party historian saying his account of the massacre was a key history.
Historical interpretations: Minor grammar point, but "in order to" can usually afford to have the first two words removed; this actually leads prose to be better in areas where it is removed, as it becomes a little tighter. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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