From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

I will review this article. Please be patient; it'll take a while. I will probably report back in segments. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Here are some comments on the early sections.

  • Lead
    • First sentence has two facts: the Choctaw originate from the south-eastern states, and they are of the Muskogean linguistic group. Punctuation is necessary to separate these.
    • "..may have derived from.." would be better: "may derive from"
    • "…meaning wineglass or flat" reads very oddly, when the terms are so unrelated. I suggest a comma after "chato", then: "which can mean 'wineglass', or alternatively, 'flat'"
    • "it is widely believed…" by whom? Citation required
    • "are believed to have encountered.." Ditto
    • First sentence of para 2 is clumsily worded and the grammar is wrong. Also, independence was from the British Crown, not the British Empire – "empire" is a collective term for the colonies. I’d simplify: "During the American Revolution most Choctaws supported the thirteen colonies' bid for independence from the British Crown". Unless this is cited later in the article this statement should be cited here.
    • Next sentence is incomprehensible. What were these treaties, when were they signed, what was their purpose? How come we now have Choctaw "exiles"? Also, even with the link I think Jackson should be referred to as "President Andrew Jackson".
    • The last sentence of the lead is confusing, and probably violates WP:Lead: "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them".
  • New World antiquity
    • Paleo-indians appears with and without hyphen. Which is correct?
    • The first "the" in the opening sentence is superfluous. Also, "in what today is referred to as the South" is Americo-centric. Suggest: "in what today, in the US, is referred to as the South".
    • What is a "fairly generalized" hunter-gatherer?
    • This sentence needs a comma after "animals", and the word "soon”" is superfluous
    • In the following sentence, need to clarify that "they" refers to the Choctaw, not the mammoths
    • "Cushman writes:" requires a colon rather than a comma, same where you have "Cushman continues:" However, this quote from Cushman is pretty dreadful in terms of sentence construction and punctuation. I can't work out who/what the various theys and thems are. I'd chuck the quote – it lowers the tone of the article.


  • Origin tradition
    • This section needs to be made into a more coherent entity.
    • I can't understand why the sentence beginning “Despite…” – is a “despite” sentence.
    • Give dates of Romans and Catlin quotes, and integrate them into the narrative
    • Nanih Waiya needs explaining, as well as the link (the link should be to provide more information, but the term should be defined or explained)
    • Moundville and Plaquemine should be followed by commas, not semi-colons.

More to come. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Another portion:-

  • Post Columbian
    • As with Nanih Waiya, "Mississippian culture" needs a brief explanation in the text, rather than just the link. "The Mississippian mound-building culture" might do.
    • The word "that" is superfluous in the second sentence
    • General readers may wonder what "the gulf shores”" means. Which gulf?
    • "The political centres of the Mississippians" needs explaining
  • Panfilo de Narvaez: Is this subsection necessary? Insofar as this information relates to the Choctaw, it could be reduced to a single linking sentence.

RESOLVED TO THIS POINT

  • Hernando De Soto
    • Who was he? He should be properly introduced.
    • "were known by the antecedents" might be better as "became known to the…"
  • Impact of Old World Diseases: Basically, this subsection says that there's no evidence for something. So why mention it at all? I can't see a need for it. Also, the last two sentences are not related to the subsection, and the last is uncited opinion.
  • Le Moyne d’Iberville
    • Re first direct contact with a European…what about the Choctaws who feasted and danced with De Soto?
      • The Choctaw were not known as the Choctaw when they came into contact with DeSoto.
    • Link Louisiana
    • "Illegal fur trading may have led to…" Sentence needs a citation
    • The scenario that follows must also be cited.
  • United States relations
    • Henry Knox – who he?
    • Since he is writing about Washington rather than Jackson, I suggest that Remini becomes merely "noted historian.
    • Why are civilize and presents italicized?
    • "bided with" (meaning "went along with") sounds very archaic in BritEng – perhaps it's a popular term in AmEng? Otherwise, try "accepted"
    • Comma needed after "during the war".
    • Introduce Tecumseh
  • Hopewell
    • Taboca – who is he?
    • friendship is one word. If it’s two words in the quote, write (sic) after.
  • War of 1812
    • Tecumseh came where?
    • Introduce Pushmataha (I know he’s in the lead image, but that was a long time ago, and I’ve forgotten)
    • "Kantachi, or Econochaca" suggests uncertainty as to place. "Kantachi, otherwise called…" would clarify
    • "Many of them departed…." Who departed, what did they depart from?

More later

Third instalment: This will take us to about half way. I will pause until I get some response from the editors.

  • Doak's stand
    • Comma required after United States in first line
    • surrender – to whom?
      • to the United States Rob ( talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • what/who are mingos?
    • "headsmen like…" is too casual, informal
      • change to such as Rob ( talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Sharp Knife should be in quotes
    • Comma required after "Jackson resorted to threats"
    • Introduce Apuckshunubbee
    • "blacked mailed"? Presumably blackmailed.
    • Last sentence of section should not anticipate later sections
      • Sentence delted although I thought it was a good transitional sentence. Rob ( talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delegation to Washington City
    • Need to explain the term "encroaching settlement"
      • squatting is a better term Rob ( talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • principal, not principle
    • Comma required after "settlement"
    • Suggest reword: "…and to seek either expulsion of the settlers or financial compensation".
    • Why is the proposed route to Washington either interesting or noteworthy?
    • Suggest "which ceded even more Choctaw territory to the United States"
    • The last para needs many more citations – everything from "Other historians say he fell over a cliff" to end of para must be cited.
  • Treaty of Dancing Rabbit
    • Who is General Leflore (or LeFlore)?
    • You must not introduce phrases like "where the rabbits go to dance" in an encyclopaedia article.
      • This was the name of the place given by the Choctaw. Added phrase "near present day Noxubee County, Mississippi." Rob ( talk) 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You need to sort out grammar and tenses in the sentence which begins "The treaty signed away…"
    • Italicized emphasis is unnecessary on "first", in a neutral encyclopaedia article
  • Removal era
    • Sort out the Joseph Cobb quote. Which parts of the sentence did he actually say? What do you think is the meaning of the odd phrase: "the red man’s superior in every way"?
      • everything he said is in quotes. I'm not sure what the phrase means. The point the sentence is trying to make is Choctaw are inferior. Rob ( talk) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, over to you for a reaction. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No reaction yet from you. This is the remaider of my review. Please leave a note on my talkpage when you are ready to engage.

  • American Civil War
    • Introduce Peter Pytchlynn
    • Confederate battalions were (not "where") formed
    • Who is "Garrison"?
    • Colon needed after "response"
    • "McCurtain…was elected…" should be "had been elected", since this is a step back to before the war. This paragraph is detached form the rest of the section, and seems to serve no purpose.
    • "The Mobile Adv. & Reg. would advertise…" – should be "…& Reg. advertised…”"
    • Last para, for clarity, should begin: "…Spann organized the first Mississippi battalion of Choctaws…"
    • The long dramatic quote from Spann is largely unnecessary. Too much concentration here, perhaps,Report 2 mor fixes on a single incident
  • Choctaw freedmen
    • "exposed to Africans"? Meaning what?
    • I don't understand the purpose of the second sentence.
    • Introduce Moshultubbee
  • Territory transition: After the very detailed history you have previously provided, this very brief section is all there is, covering a 50-year period up to 1914. This seems strange; did nothing else of note happen in that time?
    • Added new section Post Civil War and new information leading up to World War I. This should help fill in the fifty year gap. Rob ( talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Code talkers
    • "a group", not "A group"
    • Unless you are quoting from somewhere, the wording: “The…Act…will recognise…”etc. should be changed to something more neutral.
      • Deleted, not in the appropriate section Rob ( talk) 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • World War II
    • "they did not have the amenities that other citizens had". What were they lacking?
      • Expanded to include what kind Rob ( talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • A Second Lieutenant and Sgt? How come? Also, comma required after “Infantry Division”
      • Done
  • Post-war era: The prose in this section is muddled. First sentence is ungrammatical.
    • Introduce Philip Martin in text, not just in caption
    • Who is Will Campbell, and where does his quote end?
    • Phrases like "were left where they had always been" are too vague and informal for an encyclopedia article.
      • add in poverty after phrase Rob ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Recent history: This section is unbalanced by far too much information about the casino project.

I’ll look at the minor sections at the end later. At this point, I have to say that the article is a long way from being of good article standard. Many of the points raised above are minor, and can be fixed quickly, but some are indicative of more serious faults. The main problems are: your repeated failure to introduce people other than by links; serious in-line citation omissions, as noted; generally poor prose which is often difficult to read; over-detailing in some areas and scant detail in others. Please leave me a note when you have had the chance to deal with the specific matters I have raised.

Brianboulton ( talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I attended a seminar for the last two weeks and now I'm ready to edit once again ... Thanks for the article review. I need time to go through it as it is, once again, a long list. Rob ( talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
You obviously have time problems, so to help out, I've fixed most of the minor points myself - see above. It reduces the list a bit. If you are likely to have real problems in dealing with the outstanding issues within the next few days, please leave me a note here. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I have edited the lead ... does it make more sense to you? Rob ( talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, looking better. More to come? Brianboulton ( talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
New World antiquity section completed. I'll address all sections that need to be improved. Rob ( talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article has now been on review for nine days, with much still to do. There must be a time limit. I propose to close the review on 24 June; let me know without delay if this is a problem. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
That's reasonable. I'll have time this weekend to review it. Rob ( talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
You might want to close the review. I can't finish the article today. In the mean time I'll continue to enhance the aritcle. Rob ( talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It pains me to close, but I think I have no choice; the review has been open for two weeks and there is still a raft of issues outstanding, and it is likely to be some time before they are settled. This is basically a thoroughly worthwhile article which will easily make it through GA when you can finally give it the time it needs. I hope you will bring it back soon.

Against the GA crieria:-

  • Well-written: Still more work to do - marginal Fail
  • Factually accurate and verifiable: Important citations missing - Fail
  • Broad coverage: Pass
  • Neutral: Pass
  • Stable: Pass
  • Images: Pass
  • Overall: Reluctant Fail

Brianboulton ( talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Choctaw/GA1&oldid=275470617"