Talk:Fort Phantom Hill

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Phantom Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 18:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have Cutrer's bio of Ben McCulloch and will check to see if it has anything useful. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC) }}

I believe the article lede section might be a bit too in depth, but I'm relatively new to this process so I'm not sure if this is something I should make recommendations for improvement here, or if I should take that to the article talk page. Everything else seems good with the article. Thank you! Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in Cutrer's Ben McCulloch and the Frontier Military Tradition or in Colton's The Civil War in the Western Territories.

• "Fort McKavett was established during the American colonization of Texas" - the reference to Fort McKavett seems to be a relic from the copying within from that article
  • I cannot believe I didn't catch this. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• "In 1849, gold was discovered in California" - hadn't the Gold Rush already started in 1848 after they found gold at Sutter's Mill?
  • Corrected. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• "which the garrison could abate even by digging an 80-foot (24 m) well" - context suggests you might have intended "could not abate"?
  • Another embarassing slip up. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• "along with Forts Mason and Terrell." - any chance you mean Fort Terrett?
  • Yes; corrected. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Image licensing is fine
• As per the new GA reviewing expectations, I spot-checked a few sources. No copyright or source-text integrity issues noted
• All sources are reliable

Only very minor issues here; placing on hold. Hog Farm _Talk 23:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick review! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a town was built on the grounds of Fort Phantom Hill that was briefly the seat of Jones County before ceasing to exist? Source: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/fort-phantom-hill , Alexander, Thomas E.; Utley, Dan K. (2015). Echoes of Glory: Historic Military Sites Across Texas. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-62349-337-0. Page 78 , Wright, Bill (2013). Fort Phantom Hill: The Mysterious Ruins on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River. State House Press. ISBN 9781933337586 Pages 107-108
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Harkin 1992 presidential campaign

Improved to Good Article status by Vami IV (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fort Phantom Hill; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Suggest: ALT 01: ... that the ruined Fort Phantom Hill was briefly a town that was the seat of Jones County, Texas? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Hi Vami IV (talk) and Onegreatjoke (talk), review follows: article promoted to GA on 6 March; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing and Earwig is clear; hook fact is interesting, mentioned in the article and mostly checks out to the accessible source (AGF on the 1900 abandonment which is cited offline); I've struck ALT0 as I much prefer the wording of ALT1; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)