Talk:Fort Washington (Massachusetts)

Overhaul-Complete
Please be more specific--It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2010. Added more footnotes citations etc. to articleBriancam41356 (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete Overhaul
This article needs to be properly sourced. Also needs to be proof read, have the opinion statements taken out, and be formatted into a more readable way.Rhvanwinkle (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Added more footnotes citations etc. to articleBriancam41356 (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding citations isn't going to fix the formatting and opinion problems. Statements like "and may well have been assumed by them to be of much greater importance than was actually the case" are somebody's opinion: whose? (this is at least one reason why that sentence is tagged with citation needed) "The best statement about the transfer" is also a statement of opinion, presumably yours.  Your (and my) opinions are not welcome in articles; verifiable statements are.  Who says this statement about the transfer is "the best"?


 * Formatting issues include:
 * including quotations in three different formats
 * repeating the same quotation three times (once each in header, text, and endnote) -- note that I removed the quote, and you put it back
 * using over-long headers like "Massachusetts State Legislature Legislative ACT Chap. 460" and "Historic American Buildings Survey Plan images, March 1934" (when "Legislative history" and "Image gallery" would be perfectly adequate, for example, if those sections were even necessary)
 * Short sections; one-sentence paragraphs. These should be collapsed and combined.
 * Image gallery should be moved to Wikimedia Commons; the HABS survey images do not add a great deal of value here (although one might).


 * Seriously, have you looked at any higher-quality fort articles to see how they are organized? See e.g. Fort Senneville, Fort Necessity, and Fort Ticonderoga.  Magic ♪piano 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

only surviving fortification from the Siege of Boston.--citation needed--
Added more footnotes citations etc. to articleBriancam41356 (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Briancam 03:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you didn't cite the statement at issue.  Magic ♪piano 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Q: What is Fort Washington, and where is it?

A: Fort Washington is located at 101 Waverly Street, between Reardon Street and Talbot Street (See #22 on CDD open space map). The fort was built in 1775 by order of General George Washington. Seen now as grassy embankments, the fort is the only surviving physical remnant of the Revolutionary War in Cambridge. Several small forts, including this three-gun battery, were built to prevent the movement of British troops up the Charles River.

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/historic/faq.html

Briancam41356 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Briancam 15:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't say it's the "only surviving fortification from the Siege of Boston". It may be the only such one in Cambridge, but it does not support the broader claim.  Magic ♪piano 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:PELHAM_MAP_1777.JPG may be deleted
I have tagged File:PELHAM_MAP_1777.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. -- Chris  08:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) This deleted map is in the Library of Congress -- no copyright violation --unsigned comment added by Briancam41356 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because something is in the LoC doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. It is your responsibility as uploader of the image to provide a correct copyright statement; other editors are within their rights to flag such images for deletion otherwise.  In the case of this image, providing a copyright statement would presumably not have been difficult, if it really was a 1777 map.  Magic ♪piano 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-write
I came to this article hoping to learn something about American Revolutionary War fortifications - I left it baffled, confused and disappointed.

For instance, in the 'Cannons' section, mention is made of guns at Stonington, Salisbury and Mount Defiance. I thought this article was about Fort Washington. There's a touch of 'we-have-plenty-of-pictures, let's-put-them-in-an-'Image gallery'.' (I have just noticed this point has already been brought-up at the fifth bullet point in the second comment above); 'nuff said. While we are on the subject of pictures, the first one caught my eye. The word 'surviving' appears twice in the lede. But this picture, even when clicked-on, merely shows a couple of guns between some earth mounds. What, (apart from the guns), has actually survived?

For this Limey at least, massive revision is needed. This article could do with a re-write, from the ground up. What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)