Talk:Overhill Cherokee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Overhill Cherokee has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 25, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 31, 2007.

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Interesting topic, but some style issues that should be addressed, as well as some statements that should have source citations

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I've listed some MOS and prose issues below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I've listed a few spots that I feel need source citations
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Detailed issues -

  • Lede is much too short for the size of the article.Wikipedia:Lead section suggests two or three paragraphs for an article this size.
  • Geographic area section, the maps would look better right or left aligned, rather than smack in the middle of the article.
  • Same section, I'd like to see a reference for the sentence that starts "Although most of the Tennessee side of the Smokies was used...".
  • Same section, first and second paragraph, you mention Great Smoky Mountains in the first paragraph, and in the second use the diminutive Smokies to refer to it. However, folks from outside the United States might not realize that Smokies is the nickname for the Great Smoky Mountains.
  • Same section, the following statements should have references:
  1. Tanasi "The Little Tennessee was originally simply called the Tennessee ... " and "The name was eventually applied to the entire state."
  2. Chilhowee - "The term "Chilhowee"..."
  3. Tomotley - "Timberlake reported a ..."
  4. Mialoquo - "Mooney believed .. " and "The term "Milaloquo..."
  5. Great Hiwassee - "The Cherokee were not the first inhabitants... " and "The term ..."
  • Overhill towns in Cherokee lore section, the first introductory paragraph could use some padding so it is no longer a one sentence paragraph.
  • Same section, I'm not entirely sure that this whole section really belongs in this article. Wouldn't it fit better into a Cherokee folklore article, with a link within this article?
  • History section, I'd like to see a reference for the first introductory paragraph, as well as for the last sentence in the second paragraph, the one that states the Overhill Cherokee spoke a distinct dialect.
  • Same section, Alexander Cuming subsection. The last sentence in the last paragraph needs a citation for the claim that his visit helped solidify the alliance.
  • Same section, Fourt Loudoun subsection, is footnote 18 in the second paragraph supposed to apply to the first paragraph also? If so, the citation should be repeated. If not, the first paragraph needs some sort of reference.
  • Same section, Timberlake Expedition subsection, who are James Grant, William Byrd and Adam Stephens? and why did it fall to them to attack the Cherokee towns?
  • Same section, same subsection, if you haven't already wikilinked the Holston and French Broad rivers, they should be (I lost track if they were or not)
  • Same section, same subsection. Many of these paragraphs are one or two sentences, which gives the subsection a very choppy feel to the prose. Would benefit from some merging into a smaller number of paragraphs.
  • Same section, The American Revolution subsection. First paragraph could use a citation.
  • Same section and subsection, Second paragraph, the last sentence says (see Chickamauga Wars). Is this a citation? Or is it referring to a wikipedia article? Or is it referring to a printed book that details these events better? It's very unclear.
  • Same section and subsection, The second sentence, I'm confused as to who exactly dispatched John Sevier, was it the Cherokee or the Wataugans? And a quick description of who John is would not be amiss, so that I don't have to click through to another article to get a general idea of who John Seveier is.
  • Same section, The Chickamauga Wars subsection, is footnote 27 supposed to cover all the subsection? If it does, the citation should be placed at the end of each paragraph, otherwise some of these paragraphs need citations.
  • Same section and subsection, the second paragraph is only two sentences long and could stand to be combined with another paragraph.
  • Same section, The Overhill sites today. Might work better as a section, instead of being a subsection under History.
  • Same section and subsection, it would be nice to have citations for last sentences of the first paragraph and the last paragraph, but this isn't something that will keep the article back.
  • Personally, I prefer a "Notes" and a "Sources" section, but your referencing system works. Having a Sources section allows readers to find in one place more in depth treatments of the subject matter.
  • MOS things with the pictures. It would be nice to vary the pictures, some right aligned, some left aligned, rather than having them all run down the right side.

I've put the article nomination on hold for seven days to give folks a chance to address these issues. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to bring them up and I'll be happy to discuss my reasoning and try to find solutions.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the folklore section should be removed from this article and given it's own. It doesn't really seem to fit. -- PEPSI2786talk 04:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'll work on this over the next few days. Bms4880 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Your reviewer thanks you for crossing off the to-do list items as you attend to them. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Am looking forward to seeing the finished article! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you're going to need a few extra days, which I'd be happy to let you have, you're doing great work so far. Also, if you're finished up, let me know. I think the last item remaining was more a preference than a must change, so I'm not sure if you're done or not at this point. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's ready for final assessment. Bms4880 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good but the Lede. It's still really short and doesn't summarize the main points of the article. Per WP:LEDE, it should summarize the article, and there is one large section (with many subheadings) that isn't adequately summarized, the History section. There is also no mention of the trails section, or the interesting fact that Tennessee got its name from one of the Overhill towns. Generally I'd expect to see at least half of the subsections in History mentioned in the lede (better would be all of them, but that might be too much detail). Also the section on the towns today isn't covered either. I find it helpful when I'm writing a lede to make sure that I put in a fact from each large paragraph in the article. That usually manages to bring out enough information to cover WP:LEDE. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I will be happy to give you a few days or a week to do this, so don't worry about a time limit. The idea is to improve the article, not have policy for policies sake. (Sorry for the disjointed replies this morning, I just got up and am still waiting on the morning caffeine.) Ealdgyth | Talk 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, expanding the lede shouldn't be a problem. I'll need another day or two. Bms4880 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Take the time you need, I'm fine with another week, and that's what I've noted on my notes. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if the lede needs to be still more specific. WP:Lede says to give a "summary." I'm also wondering if I should merge the "Trails" section into the geography section. Bms4880 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Lede looks good. I can see the trails in the geography section. Easiest way to do that, and probably best as far as organization, would be to take the trails section down a level in the headings (3 ='s on each side instead of 2). Since the towns is already at that level, the trails would fit right in. If you want to do it, that's fine, I'll hold. If you are still iffy, I'm not going to worry about it. Also, last little thing that totally escaped my notice until now, the titles for your section and subsection headings should only have the first word and any proper nouns capitalized. So it should be "Trails and paths" ... my fault, I totally missed it. If you want, I can get those in a few. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks GREAT! Promoting now! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)