Talk:Fishing Creek Confederacy

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fishing Creek confederacy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lots and lots of spots where the prose could use some polish and working on.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references probably are reliable, but I can't tell because I can't reliably find them.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General -
  • I'm seeing a general overuse of commas throughout the text - for example "Indeed, a total of 618 people from the county were drafted in July 1863, and approximately 75% of them did not show up." where you can simplify the sentence to "A total of 618 people from the county were drafted in July 1863 and approximately 75% of them did not show up." (The indeed is totally unnecessary and should not be used in encyclopedic writing) or "Initially, they were searching for a deserter named Silas Karns, but were unable to find him, so instead searched for a deserter named Wolf." - which could easily be "Initially they were searching for a deserter named Silas Karns, but were unable to find him so instead searched for a deserter named Wolf." Audit the entire article for this overuse - it's a common failing in American writing.

 Fixed

• Lead:
  • "During the Fishing Creek confederacy, one hundred residents of northern Columbia and eastern Luzerne..." should be "100 residents" per MOS.

 Fixed

• • Link "draft evaders" to "draft evasion" in the first paragraph and drop the link in the second paragraph. Should link on first occurance.

 Fixed

• • "... there were only a few draft evaders or deserters in the county." but you mention two counties in the previous sentence - which is it, one or two counties?

 Fixed

• • "...a thousand soldiers were in the county..." should be "1,000" per MOS.

 Fixed

• • Choppy writing - "Many newspapers covered the event. Most Democratic newspapers tended to blame abolitionists and most Republican newspapers tended blame Democratic newspapers." suggest "Of the many newspapers covering the even, most Democratic ones tended to blame abolitionists and most Republican papers blamed the Democratic newspapers."

 Fixed

• • More stilted writing - "The Fishing Creek confederacy has also been written about by many amateur and professional historians, and has been written about in fiction." suggest "Since the end of the conspiracy, many amateur and professional historians have studied the events and they have formed the basis of fictional accounts as well."
  • There isn't an explicit statement in the lead that there was no conspiracy, nor anything about how the trials turned out. Lead needs a bit more fleshing out with information from the body, as it is it doesn't summarize the article.

 Fixed

• Background -
  • No need to link to a dictionary definition of "pervaded" - this isn't a particularly difficult word to understand.

 Fixed

• • "This tension resulted in raids and arrests in some of the counties, including Columbia County, and it increased when a very large number of men were drafted from Columbia County.[5] The increase in tension was also partly due to an 1863 law requiring all men from 20 to 45 years old to be drafted." Somewhat stilted - suggest "This tension resulted in raids and arrests in some of the counties, including Columbia County, and it increased when a very large number of men were drafted from Columbia County.[5] Later, a 1863 law requiring all men from 20 to 45 years old to be drafted increased tensions further."

 Fixed

• • Not sure what you mean with "However, even as long before the Fishing Creek confederacy as 1862"? Reword?

 Fixed

• • "Some time after this law was passed..." but the preceeding sentence isn't about a law .. suggest just state when these meetings were held.

 Fixed (partially)

• • "A war carried on contrary to the rules and provisions of that instrument [the Constitution], whether it be a crusade against slavery, or any other fanatical or delusory scheme, never can and never will receive our support" this quote needs a citation on the sentence it appears in.

 Fixed

• • Is the "Columbia Democrat" a newspaper? If so, the title needs to be italics.

 Fixed

• • "along which the cannons were supposedly dragged" - you can remove "the" here - it's unneeded.

 Fixed

• • "Additionally, due to the strife between Democrats and Republicans in Columbia County, a soldier was shot in the northwestern part of the county." I'm not getting how the strife caused the shooting? Did he get in the way or try to break something up or what?

 Fixed

• • "and a thousand soldiers were dispatched to occupy" as above, needs to be "1,000".

 Fixed

• • "deserters in the nearby Columbia County" the is unneeded here

 Fixed

• • If Columbia Democrat is worth a redlink - redlink it at the first occurance in the first paragraph.

 Fixed

• • Not really necessary to link to cornfield.

 Fixed

• • Runon sentence - "Meanwhile, Thomas Smith's wife alerted the neighborhood about the arrival of the group and a party of locals arrived, and three deserters in the area with the group of locals armed themselves." needs rewording.

 Fixed

• • "quarter-mile" need to use Template:Convert here.

 Fixed (partially)

• Search:
  • Per MOS - you don't use "The" in subheadings - so the heading should be "Search for the fort" rather than "The search for the fort".

 Fixed

• • "forty-eight soldiers" should be "48"

 Fixed

• • "including senator Charles R. Buckalew" - state senator or U. S. Senator? Needs to specify and it should be "Senator"

 Fixed

• • "thousand soldiers" should be "1,000"

 Fixed

• • "That evening, the soldiers made camp again at Coleman's Grove near Benton, Pennsylvania." Couple of things wrong here - extraneous comma for one and the second is why use "again"?

 Fixed

• • "However, on a meeting on August 14, a number of people agreed they were prepared to defend themselves if necessary." HOwever really isn't needed here - and "on a meeting"? This is also out of chronological order here - needs rewording.

 Fixed

• • Something is borked in this sentence - "These men were led by Jacob Schultz, Samuel Kline, To find out about the soldiers in Bloomsburg, one of these men, Samuel Kline, went south to Bloomsburg." - is it meant to be two sentences and are there additional leaders?

 Fixed

• • "twenty other draft evaders" should be "20"

 Fixed

• • "scouts were sent through the northern townships" - scouts from what? THe US army? Or the local residents?

 Fixed

• • "ten more miles" should be "10 more miles" and needs a conversion.

 Fixed

• • "From here the marched up the valley of East Branch Fishing Creek to." to where?

 Fixed

• Arrests:
  • "surrounded a hundred houses" should be "100"

 Fixed

• • "A hundred Democrats" should be "100"

 Fixed

• • Link to "Copperheads" - we have an article I'm sure.

 Fixed

• • "were forty years of age or older" should be "40"

 Fixed

• • Okay, here's where the MOS makes things interesting - "However, only 7 were convicted of the charges, and six were soon pardoned" - "7" should be "seven". Numbers UNDER 10 get spelled out.

 Fixed

• • "The group of soldiers thus captured a number of people in Sugarloaf Township on August 31st" two things - "thus"? Why thus? Did you mean "Then"? And we don't use "31st" constructions on Wikipedia - just plain "August 31".

 Fixed

• Aftermath:
  • "The whole thing is a farce" this quotation needs a citation on it and you don't need to link to the dictionary definition of farce.

 Fixed

• • " four and sixty armed" should be "4 and 60" - you use all numerals for things that are compared.

 Fixed

• • No need to link "trial" - readers will understand the word.

 Fixed

• • Unless you have specific sources that tie "As late as the 1920 and 1924 presidential elections, Columbia County remained in favor of the Democratic party.[14] However, by 2004, Columbia County had started to favor the Republican party.[15]" to the conspriacy - it's OR. The sources you give don't support the tie, so you either need to give such sources or remove the information.

 Fixed

• Media:
  • No need to link "biased"

 Fixed

Err.. no, it's still linked.

• • Why do you link Philadelphia here, when you didn't link it on first occurance earlier?

 Fixed

• • Why are 1950 and 1958 linked here? We don't link years.

 Fixed

• • No need to link "schools"

 Fixed

• • The fictional account is trivia and unless you have secondary sources that extensively discuss this work and how it sheds light on the actual conspiracy - it's not needed in the article.

 Fixed, but I left it in a comment in case a secondary source appears later (it's still a new book)

• References -
  • You need to give specific page numbers for the various books you're using as references - the books are large and WP:V generally requires you to provide reasonably specific references - such as page numbers. Also your books should give full bibliographic information - publisher at the least.

 Fixed

• • What article or issue or even month was the information from footnote 4 in? Per WP:V it needs more specificity.

Complicated. The "newspaper" is actually an amalgamation of Columbia Stars from the 1860s (prepared by the county's historical and genealogical society).

• • Likewise for footnote 6 - who is the author of this? Is it a newspaper article? I can't find it from the bibliographical details. Same problem with footnote 8, 9, 12, 11.

N Not done and not likely to be done because the author was not mentioned on the paper.

• I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I fixed a few things. ^King Jakob _C2 22:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

All comments addressed. ^King Jakob _C2 22:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay footnote 4 is still not verifiable. If it's a collection of articles - cite it as a book and give page numbers. As it is, it's still totally impossible to figure out what this is. Footnote 6 - is this a newspaper article? If it lacks an author, that's fine, but you need to name the newspaper here, same for footnote 8, 9, 11, 12. Need a page number for footnote 13. Biased is still linked in paragraph 1 of "Media" - and we've relinked a bunch of common terms - "editor" "shingles" "rumor" "press" "laborers" ... etc. It's not something that is going to hold the GA status up, but it makes things look silly .. like you're searching really really really hard to find something/anything to link to. The hold up is the verifiability things - that needs fixing before I can pass the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added in the newspaper names. ^King Jakob _C2 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! Great work! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit, August 2013

I am copy editing this article in response to a GOCE request made by User:King jakob c 2. I am rearranging many of the sentences to improve the prose. There are a few questions I have, listed below.

• The last paragraph of the "background" section mentions a soldier shot in the northwestern part of the county, but it doesn't say when it happened, or who was shot, so it's hard to coordinate it with other facts in that paragraph. Is more information available? Or is that soldier Lieutenant Robinson? It's not clear.

• Removed for now, but I'll look into it. ^King Jakob _C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears you removed the part where three soldiers were shot, not the part where one soldier was shot. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• The same paragraph then mentions "several Union soldiers" shot "in early August 1864". Is this referring to the incident where Robinson was shot? Or some other incident? It would appear to be a shooting that occurred either during or after it.

• Possibly a newspaper error. I've corrected this. ^King Jakob _C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You have to go with what the sources say. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

They don't say this, interestingly enough. It'll stay removed. ^King Jakob _C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the entire final paragraph of "background" ("A soldier was shot...") should be incorporated into the rest of the text chronologically. Either it mentions shootings that are also mentioned below, or it mentions shootings that should be mentioned below. It also mentions the 1000 soldiers dispatched, and that is clearly in the wrong section. Someone who has read the actual sources and understands the chronology will have to reorganize this, since it is not clear to me.

• It is organized chronologically. It discusses the latest events mentioned in that section. ^King Jakob _C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't clear, but it doesn't seem to be chronological at all, and it seems self-contradictory. I'll go point by point.

The last paragraph of "Background" talks about a shooting "in July or August 1864 near Raven Creek", and then rumors spread, and finally "the group of soldiers" (what group?) gets "dispatched to occupy Columbia County" to search for a fort.

The next section, "Initial search for deserters", goes back to July of 1864, where a group of soldiers (the same group?) is dispatched to Union county, but ended up in Columbia. But they're not there to search for a fort; they're searching for deserters. It doesn't say when Robinson gets shot, but from context it must be July or August 1864 near Raven Creek, making me strongly suspect Robinson is the soldier mentioned in the last paragraph of "Background". (If not, it's another soldier killed in the same time and place.) After that, in "Search for the 'fort'", a group of soldiers really is dispatched to occupy Columbia County, just as was earlier described in "Background", to search for a fort.

So either (a) the entire last paragraph of "background" describes what happens in the next several sections, and info from that paragraph should be incorporated into those sections instead, or (b) that paragraph describes a separate shooting in the same time and place and a separate group of soldiers dispatched for the same purpose, in which case it needs to be better explained. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably going to take me until Monday to finish this up. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Quadell: I've responded to your comments. ^King Jakob _C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• In "Aftermath", the article refers to soldiers "living off the inhabitants". I know what you mean, but it sounds comically like the soldiers were eating the citizens. I'm not sure how to best rephrase it though. Were they living in civilians' homes? Or just taking their food?

• I didn't see that in the source, so I removed it. ^King Jakob _C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• The "Aftermath" section say that by November 2 there were fewer political prisoners. That's an emotionally laden term. In my opinion, you should either (a) simply say "prisoners" instead, or (b) use the term political prisoners above in the section where prisoners are taken, along with a source that calls them that.

•  Fixed for consistency's sake, but "political prisoners" were actually mentioned in the source. ^King Jakob _C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• That section also says the soldiers guarded the polling location "to stop Democrats from voting". That's a pretty striking accusation. Does this mean "to stop deserters from voting"? They can't have stopped all voters from voting for Democrats, since Democrats still won those elections. Were the "44 Democrats" arrested for being Democrats, or for being deserters?

• Apparently, it was two newspaper editors (see the names in my comment below) who said this; I changed the wording on that. ^King Jakob _C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Finally, the "Aftermath" section says "Local newspaper editors blamed the low turnout on the abolitionists", but no abolitionists have been mentioned. Do you mean that they blamed the low turnout on the soldiers, whom they referred to as abolitionists? Or were other abolitionists meant?

• The source I got that information says The editors [Tate and Jacoby] laid much of the blame on local abolitionists. I changed the wording to better convey this. ^King Jakob _C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've finished proofreading this article. It will remain on my watchlist, and I'll be available to answer any questions. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced

Is this just a book report on a single source ("Sauers & Tomasak") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen577 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There are 12 separate sources. The Sauers/Tomasak book is just one of them. This is an encyclopedia article not a book report. --Jakob (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)