Talk:First Battle of Newtonia Historic District

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 Yoninah (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District preserves a landscape that is considered to be generally similar to the landscape's appearance during the First Battle of Newtonia? Source 6 in the text
  • ALT1:... that a 2013 study by the National Park Service determined that the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District was not suitable for inclusion in the National Park Service's list of units? Source 1 in the text

• Reviewed: I don't believe I'm required to yet

Converted from a redirect by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC).

• Nominated within seven days within being converted from a redirect and meets the length guidelines. Nominator is except from QPQ since they have less than five DYK credits. Article is neutral, reliably sourced and not a copyright violation. Hooks are netural, reliably sourced and concise. I prefer ALT0. GTG MWright96 (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

GA nominee or already a GA article?

Hog Farm, I am a little confused, the class for the article is set to GA - but it's also a GA nominee. Is it a GA article already?

I was considering reviewing it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @CaroleHenson: - That's an error on me. When I expanded this article from a redirect, it didn't have a talk page, so I copied the wikiproject markup from First Battle of Newtonia. I thought I got all the classes changed, but I missed the MilHist one. Thanks for pointing that out. Hog Farm (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Thanks! I will start on it today. I will start the review page right now though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Battle of Newtonia Historic District/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 16:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking forward to performing a review of this article. My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

• The introduction looks good. I made a couple of minor tweaks here. Since it's called a historic district, I don't think it's necessary to say that it's a historic district. I moved the "historic district" to another sentence with the link. I also tweaked two links.
• It's a little short for an introduction, but it's not a long article. Maybe there's one or two notable points that could be added. I may come back to this after working on the rest of the sections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine based upon the article length.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Battle

• Looks good. I made two minor tweaks to the piped values in the links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Historic district

• Regarding The First Battle of Newtonia Historic District was created in 2004 to preserve the site of the battle. The site is a historic district and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places., it's already very clear that it's a historic district. And, the preservation site is linked to it being a NRHP. What do you think about "The First Battle of Newtonia Historic District, created in 2004 to preserve the site of the battle, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." Or, you could say "which is listed as a historic district on the ..."?
  • Went with the first suggestion

I added the word "and"–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps, to tighten up this sentence: The five contributing resources are a barnyard associated with the Ritchey House, a cemetery from the American Civil War period, a stream named Newtonia Branch, the Neosho Road, and the battlefield site itself. It could be worded something like: The five contributing resources are a barnyard associated with the Ritchey House, a Civil War-era cemetery, the Newtonia Branch stream, Neosho Road, and the battlefield site itself."
  • Would this be a thing where a direct quote would be acceptable? That section you underlined is the exact wording in the source, and the awkward wording was my attempt at paraphrasing. If so, I can use the direct quote. I'll also think of alternatives just in case.
    • I think it might be best to keep your wording and shuffle the order a bit so that the five resources are in a different order. How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @CaroleHenson: - Changed to The five contributing resources are the battlefield itself, a stream named Newtonia branch, the Newtonia road, a barnyard associated with the Ritchey House, and a cemetery from the American Civil War period.. Is this along the lines of what you had in mind? Hog Farm (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Excellent, Hog Farm. Looks really good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is "generally" needed in the next sentence, since you've already explained how it changed? Or, maybe add a word like "otherwise". Perhaps to something like "the nature of the battlefield is considered to have otherwise changed little since 1862."
  • I went with " the nature of the battlefield has undergone no major changes since 1862", does that work for you?

Looks good! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a way to summarize the nature of the "29 post-battle structures" (farm buildings, houses, etc.)?
  • Clarified. A few houses and some trailer homes.

Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am sorry, I am not understanding "due to duplication of "resource protection and visitor use opportunities found in comparably managed areas."[1]" What does this mean?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I've reworded this. Does it make more sense now?

Yes, that's lovely. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Regarding the headings for References and Sources section, would you mind either:

• Having a subsection under References called Citations where the citations go?
• Or, making Sources a 2nd level, vs. third level heading?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I made it a level 2, does that look better? If you don't think it's an improvement, I have a few other ideas I could try. Hog Farm (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's lovely. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): } b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): } b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Hog Farm

• The article is well-written. (1a)
• The article generally complies with WP:MOS. Please take a look at the comments re: the Reference section and Source subsection. It's not a pass/fail issue, but it would be nice. (1b)
• Content is properly cited to reliable sources. (2a, 2b)

This is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no evidence of original research (2b). There are no copyvio issues - just titles of things and a quote.(2d)
• It covers the major aspects (3a) and is focused (3b). Generally, it would be better to have more content, but there are two other articles for more information — so it's better not to duplicate information that can be found there.
• The article is neutral and stable. (4,5)
• There is one image and it is properly tagged (PD) and has a good caption (6a, 6b).
• There are a couple of wording suggestions / thoughts in the above sections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am good with the changes. If you are feeling good about it, Hog Farm, I am ready to pass the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It's a shorter article, but there's honestly not a whole lot of write about this topic without excessively duplicating the Ritchey House or battle articles. Hog Farm (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Okay. I will pass it now. Thanks for your flexibility on the wording - yet still making it yours. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)