Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort McKavett State Historic Site

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fort McKavett State Historic Site edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Fort McKavett State Historic Site (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is another Texas fort and, briefly, island of Anglo-American settlement in the West Texas plains. Here's to a sixth A-class! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Texas was annexed by the United States of America in 1845,[4] which led to the start of the Mexican-American War the next year" - isn't this a bit of the over-simplification of the causes of the Mexican War? Maybe which was one of the main causes of the Mexican-American War the next year or something like that
  • Yes and no. Annexation itself can be said to be and to not be the main cause of the war, because what Texas was was a breakaway Mexican territory that legitimized its independence with a treaty that the post-pre-Santa Anna Mexican government refused to recognize. And then after annexation, Polk parked US Army soldiers in disputed territory to back up the claim to the Nueces strip. The Mexican Army attacking those soldiers was what enabled Polk to secure war from Congress and toss Mexico out of what is now the state of Texas. But while that could be considered the cause, those troops were there because of the annexation. Suffice to say, I believe the current wording of "led to the ... war" is apt. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking more of the idea that I've read (don't remember where) that the US was basically looking for a pretext to fight Mexico and then get a landgrab after the war but that's well beyond the scope of this article; what's in the article is fine. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 annexed what is presently the Southwestern United States.[5] The next year, gold was discovered in California, enticing an unprecedented number of white migrants to go west, across Texas" - I'd recommend tweaking this a little bit. The major immigration happened in the following year (1849), but wasn't the Sutter's Mill gold find in 1848, the same year as the treaty?
  • " In 1851, General Persifor Frazer Smith, commander of the Department of Texas, " - it is possible to use Smith's exact rank? While this wasn't a formal rank in the US Army in 1851, simply "General" is a term that formally refers to a specific four-star rank today (and also in CS Army).
  • Yes, I think so. According to the Handbook of Texas, he should be a brevetted Major General in 1851 (added). Ah, hm. Old Army in Texas, page 114, lists Smith as a Colonel. 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied " - do the sources indicate if this is just a paper formality, intergovernmental dealings, or did somebody actually own this land at the time?
  • I believe it was owned but I no longer have Sullivan 1981 to hand. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem overly important; I checked the libraries local to me to see if any of them had a copy but none do. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as part of Wikipedia Library Project MUSE, The Old Army in Texas: A Research Guide to the U.S. Army in Nineteenth Century Texas by Wooster & Smith has some more detail on units stationed at the fort - it gives a listing of what units provided the garrison in each year
  • Oh, I have that book now! I'll see what I can sprinkle in with it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes. As I recall, this was the only source I am aware that alleges that McKavett was a PoW camp. Every other one I consulted said that the Confederate/Texas frontier forces were minuscule and fairly mobile. They did camp at abandoned US Army forts during the war, but didn't dig back in at most. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this by North Texas University has a throwaway mention of "Fort McKavett [...] was operated briefly as a Civil War POW camp" but no footnote of course. That Texas state historic site website is sourced to someone's 1890s memoir so not great there. I've searched in the relevant volume of the ORs and McKavett isn't mentioned by name. Some stuff that I wouldn't consider to be reliable enough suggests that the POW camp aspect was holding one company of the 8th Infantry for a couple months. This is barely verifiable and quite miniscule so on second thought I don't think this warrants a mention given the shaky level of sourcing that can be turned up. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fort McKavett was nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places on June 18, 1969, and was included on July 6, 1971" - infobox has July 14, 1971

I think that's it from me for a general content perspective. Hog Farm Talk 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, I've left a couple replies above - I'm fine with the article as is on both points. Please let me know when you're done looking over the Wooster & Smith source. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias edit

  • Consider archiving online sources.
  • "Frazer, Robert Walter (1965)" pre-dates ISBNs. It looks like the version you are citing is a 1972 reprint of the 1965 edition, so should take |year=1972 |orig-year=1965.
  • MOS:YEARRANGE prefers year ranges to be written out in full, ie. YYYY–YYYY, not YYYY–YY; this should be changed in various places.
  • Rephrase to avoid the WP:EASTEREGG link on "a presidio": I expected it to wikilink to a page explaining what a presidio was, but instead it took me to the specific one.
  • "Construction of the post began immediately and saw rapid progress as though there were.." Need a comma after "as".
  • "..for Texas settlements." Would this not be better written as "..for Texan settlements."?
  • "..and the return of the US Army to Texas as on June 19, 1865.." I don't think the "as" is needed here?
  • "..Sherman narrowly missed being killed.." Another WP:EASTEREGG link.
  • "..who arrived at the fort in 1881." To help with clarity and tense, recommend "..who had arrived.."
  • "..established a 1 mile (1.6 km) to its north." Either remove the "a" or the "1".
  • "..but wound up with.." isn't very encyclopaedic language.
  • "..for Fort McKavett C.S.A..." Do we know what C.S.A. stands for? And unless there is an exceptional reason, space out the initials per our MOS.
  • "..during its military operated were.." This should be "operation", not "operated".
  • I find the title of the article curious; the vast majority of the article is about Fort McKavett, only the Preservation section and the first sentence of the subsequent Grounds and architecture section seem to be about Fort McKavett State Historic Site. It doesn't affect the ACR, but I'd recommend a page move once it is complete.

That's it from me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done. Some embarrassing mistakes you highlighted here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a small edit to fix the Frazer short citation. The year range issue remains outstanding, however as the A-class criteria states "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", I'm happy to support this irrespective. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

Four images only:

- all images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • All sources are well-formatted
  • Spot checks: 2, 9a, 65a, 69 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Vami IV has sadly passed on - User talk:Vami IV#Condolences. I will try to take this one on; it is in very good shape and shouldn't require much more work for promotion. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, HF. Put yourself down as co-nom; I think we'd also need to discount your support if you take over, unless any other coords have another opinion -- if so you could just collapse your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, I don't see the need for this. The support can stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed – comments Support edit

Feedback as follows:

  • In the First Occupation by the US Army section, it says "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied...": who was the land leased from?
  • Construction of the post began immediately: because of the different dates mentioned in the first paragraph, it is not immediately clear when this was. Could we say something like "Once the site on the south bank of the San Saba had been decided upon, construction of the post began immediately..."?
    • Or is it referring to immediately after the lease had been signed? I don't know. Alexander and Utley only supports the " as though there were no local civilian professionals to assist construction, there was a local abundance of usable stone and timber" part of this sentence and I can't access Sullivan.Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Use by Confederate Texas, 1861–65 section, it says "...career soldier Benjamin McCulloch. McCulloch passed...": could this be rephrased to avoid back-to-back mention of McCulloch?
    • I've changed where the sentences split and have done some rewording to avoid this. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...began regular patrols for and pursuit of raiding indigenous peoples: this "for and" wording seems really odd to me.
    • Comment: I suspect the "patrols for and purusit" means something like "patrols to locate and pursue". FWIW Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone with an adjusted version of Donner's phrasing (patrols to locate and/or pursue). Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...subsequently issued orders for more aggressive measures against the Plains Nations. Maybe put a link to [Plains Indians] on Plains Nations?
  • The "Grounds and architecture" section seems odd to me. The first sentence could finish off the previous section, while the rest could be integrated into the "Use as military outpost" section.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Please note that a response to Zawed's comments should bring this one to a favorable close. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - all the rest are addressed except for the first two, which I cannot resolve without access to Sullivan. Unfortunately, the nominator has passed on and the nearest publicly held copy of Sullivan to me is about 150 miles away. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @Zawed: I have added a ref note, citing the 1934 Crimmins article, that several persons claimed ownership of the land but the government paid a man named Robinson for the lease.
Since the camp had been moved several times, and the sentence about construction "following immediately" is in the text right after the mention of the lease, it might be logical to assume that construction on the fort did not begin until after the lease was signed. Some doubt may be shed on this becaue Crimmins wrote a series of articles in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly from 1947 to 1950 in which he provided edited notes from Lt. Colonel W. G. Freeman's Report on the Eighth Military Department from his inspection trip in 1853. In Crimmins, M. L. “W. G. Freeman’s Report on the Eighth Military Department (Continued).” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 3, 1950, pp. 308–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30235631. Accessed 17 Mar. 2024. Page 308, Freeman's report on Fort McKavett, which he inspected on August 19, 1853. On this page Freeman notes that lumber has been cut and within 30 miles all necessary wood for construction can be found. Yet on pages 308-309, Freeman said the buildings "are put up of stone."
A camp being established, a few miles away, in March 1852 and then moved would appear to rule out a March 1852 date for the beginning of construction. Some doubt on the 1855 date for construction of the fort not beginning until after the lease was signed does not appear to correspond with Freeman's language about stone buildings being put up. But I note another possibility that I can surmise in the next comment.
Perhaps the construction after the signing date after the lease could be based on the full structures with all the wood needed for completion installed not being started until after the lease was signed which could justify the 1855 date, though the inspection report could be read to specify an interim date.
This is the only information I could find about the date of beginning of the construction. The bottom line is that I could not find what I would consider a definite, specific statement concerning the date construction began. Maybe it is given in Sullivan or some other source - or maybe what I found is all that can be found and the date was some time between March 1852 and the signing of the lease. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently a copy of Sullivan at a library near-ish me. What pages do you need? Schierbecker (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think page 10 is the relevant one - who the land was leased from, and what "Construction of the post began immediately " is immediately after. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try to make a trip tomorrow. If not, next weekend. Schierbecker (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: - Thanks to Schierbecker I've been able to address this more clearly. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I saw a note had been added but the referencing style was inconsistent so I sorted this (stuffed it up initially!). I have added my support now, it is good to see this one get across the line. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Fort_McKavett_State_Historic_Site&oldid=1220134332"