Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Natchez revolt

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.

Promoted Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natchez revolt edit

Nominator(s): User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because following the recent failed FAC the article has now been significantly expanded and improved, and a milhist A-class review will be a good way of making sure everything is in order before a further FAC attempt. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
- External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
- One of the maps lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
- Images all appear to be free / PD and information looks ok. Captions look fine (no action req'd).
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
- A couple of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
  - Fort St. Pierre
  - Grand Village of the Natchez
  - Tattooed Arm
- Is this a typo? "...another factor that complicated the relation between the Natchez..." should this be something like: "...another factor that complicated relations' between the Natchez..."
- I read through it and couldn't find any major issues - looks like a high quality article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the repeatlinks and the the plural relations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added alt text for that map. Thanks for your input, and thank you, Dank, for your support. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Jsayre, happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

Good to see an article on this period. It is well referenced to a decent range of high quality sources.
In terms of copyediting:
"They first responded by ordering a massacre on the Chaouacha people," - I'd recommend "of the Chaouacha people"
"but retaliatory expeditions on Natchez refugees " - "against Natchez refugees"?
"who were allied with the British and had received guns from the British" - any way of avoiding the repetition of the "British" bit here?
"paramount chief" - worth wikilinking
"There are reports of colonists abusing Natchez" - "are reports", or "were reports"?
" In truth, each village was autonomous" - earlier the description was "semi-autonomous"
"pelts, oil, poultry, and grain" - "pelts, oil, poultry and grain" (last comma's not needed here)
" with corn, poultry, and deerskins" - ditto with the last comma
"Chépart ran to call his soldiers to garrison" - I wasn't sure what this meant. Did it mean "to call his soldiers back to the garrison", or "to call his soldiers to arms"?
"having stocked up several cannons and the firearms " - "having stockpiled several cannons"?
"There has been historical controversy about whether the Natchez plotted with other major tribes of the region to plan a simultaneous attack on the French" - Could simply be "There has been historical controversy about whether the Natchez planned a simultaneous attack on the French with the other major tribes of the region." (avoids "plotting" and "planning"). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Except for the commas, which I have left alone for consistency per MOS:SERIAL, I believe I have addressed your comments. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.