Wikipedia:Peer review/Fishing Creek confederacy/archive1
Fishing Creek confederacy[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Cdtew has offered advice to get Fishing Creek confederacy to FA standrds. Of course, anyone is welcome to pitch in.
Thanks, King Jakob C2 21:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments: I will be happy to review this; give me a day or two and I'll have all my comments together. Cdtew (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, I'll note that one thing that jumps out and seems a little odd is the use of the term "Fishing Creek confederacy". It would seem to be a noun describing an organization or a movement, yet throughout the article you use it also as a time period (as opposed to, say, "the time of the Fishing Creek confederacy" or "during the Fishing creek conspiracy"). It would seem that, unless in common parlance it's also used to describe an event/time period, you should find a way to rephrase throughout. For instance, I'm not so sure we would say "During the Confederacy" about the Confederate States of America - it's more proper to say "During the existence of the Confederacy" when referring to a time period.
- Next, the footnotes are better, but you don't have to repeat the same citation over and over again. See WP:HARV for what I mean; if you want, you can also look at some featured articles I've done to see how I use citations: Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) and James Moore (Continental Army officer). Harvard citation templates take a little time to learn, but they're easier to use than full ref templates, and they're much more versatile.
- Your lead seems a little disorganized, and could probably use some expansion, being broken into more paragraphs, and some rewording. Particularly, it reads like this (in simplified form): "There was a revolt, there was the fear that some deserters had a fort, the draft helped cause the panic, people were arrested, soldiers came to town, blame was spread around and the event was reported on". That's not a bad structure, but it could be clearer if you did something like this: "1. The FCc was an alleged uprising; 2. Local area inflamed by war and draft; 3. desertion and draft-dodging high in the area; 4. rumors circulated about a planned/existing uprising in the area; 5. This caused a panic among the populace and the military; 6. Military came in to search for the conspirators; 7. No conspiracy found, but military cracked down on dissenters and deserters; 8. some violence occurred; 9. widely covered by papers, and later by historians; 10. blamed on x,y, and z". Obviously, your lead needs to be more detailed than this, but use these general statements as a guideline.
- The biggest thing that seems to be missing is an acknowledgement or an explicit discussion of the fact that this was really more of a panic or rumor-caused commotion than an actual uprising or rebellion. I think that's the biggest take-away, being that the Union Army sent valuable troops to root out a rebellion that either (a) didn't exist, or (b) was far less pervasive than thought. What's more, the almost bigger point is that the Army used the rebellion as an excuse to round up and arrest Copperheads. Just my thoughts, but I may be speaking from a pro-Confederate bias.
- I do commonly use "alleged" and "so-called" in the article, which should get the point across. King Jakob C2 15:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, but I think it needs to be more explicit throughout the article. While it may seem clear to you, you've been living with these sources for some time. I think it would be best to explicitly discuss the illusory nature of the confederacy at several points. Cdtew (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The body of the article reads to be 40% events leading up to the Confederacy, 20% events during the Confederacy's existence (alleged), and 40% events in the aftermath. That seems a little unbalanced, but perhaps its because the confederacy was in actuality fictional or blown out of proportion? Regardless, I think the clarification I'm asking for in the point above will go a long way to explain why there's so little anyone has to say about the actual "uprising".
- The article alternates between use of the term "Fishing Creek confederacy" and Fishing Creek Confederacy" (capitalization being at issue). I'd suggest using whatever your sources use -- if it's used as a proper name, you probably need to stick with "Confederacy" (capital C), but be wary of my first note, above. Things like "During the Fishing Creek Confederacy" will still sound strange, regardless of capitalization.
- Infobox: I wouldn't use the conflict infobox, especially since this isn't a proven "conflict". Instead, I would use the infobox used by New York City draft riots; you can also look to what other famous riots used (although, again, this wasn't strictly a riot): Stonewall riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, and Charleston Riot; there's no requirement that you even use an infobox, if it throws off the article. I just think posturing the article as a conflict when it wasn't necessarily is misleading.
- I changed the infobox to reflect the New York City draft riots one. King Jakob C2 01:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
@Cdtew: Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. King Jakob C2 01:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Combination of international travel, work catch-up, new car, and back injury have limited my playing time on Wikipedia these past three weeks. I think this article can be nominated, and the reviewers will be able to give you good advice based on what you've got. I try to keep my PR's broad and less detail-oriented because I believe that things like ACR and FAC are intended to weed out the nitpicky issues. Cdtew (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)