Talk:Penn's Creek massacre/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Fiamh (talk · contribs) 07:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• MOS issue: two images (map and the Fort Granville 1916 Marker) are placed so they break across sections.

Done Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• The plaque is nice, but what qualifies it as free use under United States freedom of panorama law?

The photographer of the plaque (User: Smallbones) responded below and verifies that it is free use.Lilipo25 (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sourcing issues:
  • There's an issue with some of the sources not linking properly. User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a great tool to see when this is happening.

Done. All are now linking properly. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Page numbers missing in some paper sources.
  • What makes Deans 1963 and Leiser 2011 RSes? Local history publications aren't automatically reliable.
  • HMDB needs to be removed because it is WP:UGC. If these markers aren't discussed in reliable sources, omit.

DoneLilipo25 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Kessler 2006 looks questionable to me, given the typo in the page and the minor/local nature of the paper. Is this aspect discussed in more reliable sources.

Agreed. This was a holdover from the original author of the article; I had cut out most of the paranormal information that was included already but have now removed that, as well, as I cannot find a more reliable source. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Excessive reliance on an eighteenth century primary source (Le Roy & Leininger 1759). It's best to use such sources sparingly and with attribution; e.g. "Le Roy later wrote that ..." These are pretty sensational accounts of violence and it would be best to have secondary sourcing to evaluate if they are accurate or if historians suspect it might be exaggerated.
  • Overall, the article has heavy reliance on older publications. It's very difficult to evaluate the reliability of said publications, and scholarship has probably advanced. Is there really nothing more recent that's been written about this event? For paywalled resources, you can use WP:RX to get journal articles or book chapters.
  • All books need ISBN or OCLC, publisher, and location. Use a consistent ISBN style eg. ISBN 10 or 13 but not both.

Fiamh ISBN numbers only came into existence in 1967 and OCLC numbers in 1979. Unless a book has an edition that was published after those dates, there is no ISBN or OCLC number to include. I have standardized the format of the ISBN numbers on the books that do have them. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lilipo25, OCLC numbers were assigned to older publications. As long as it is held by at least one library it ought to have a worldcat entry. See, for example, this 1904 edition which has an oclc (OCLC 1595429). Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Try to provide ISSN, doi, and/or JSTOR id for journals.
  • Popular culture section needs to be cited to independent sources, or else you risk including unimportant stuff that fails focus criterion.

Done Lilipo25 (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• • All notes need citations.

Done Lilipo25 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Contrast between Penn's and Penns in jarring. There's no need for both pages to be at the same version, but since it's a valid alternate spelling I'd recommend referring to it as "Penn's Creek" on this page for consistency.

Done Lilipo25 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quaker pacifist roots should be "pacifist Quaker roots" or, even better, "roots in Quaker pacifism".

Done Lilipo25 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Don't list ISBNs inline (it would fall under WP:ELPOINTS). I wouldn't put publisher or other information inline either. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 11:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Done (removed ISBN and publisher but left publication year; if you think the year should also be removed, I can do that) Lilipo25 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Fiamh Thank you for undertaking this review. I can make some of these changes over the next few days.

A few quick questions/points before I go to bed:

Can you clarify which image you are referring to in the comment beginning "plaque is nice"? Do you mean the image in the infobox?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The image that I was referring to is File:Fort_Granville_1916_Marker.jpg.

I just stumbled on this. I'm the photographer of the plaque. Since the plaque was published in 1916 (before 1923), it is certainly out of copyright. Actually it was never copyrighted because back then you needed to use the word "copyright" or "(c)" on the publication to claim copyright. My photo is CC-0. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 07:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

When you state that the popular history section needs to be cited to independent sources, do you mean not to cite the books themselves when including them?

I wouldn't cite the books themselves, but some secondary source that discusses them (e.g. book review or similar). The reason for this is that at least one of these books is self published (Loder) and that is unlikely to meet WP:DUE unless it sold lots of copies and got reviews.

Re "missing page numbers in some sources": Deans 1963 has unnumbered pages and the others that have no numbers are because the citation refers to the book entire.Lilipo25 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK.Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)