Talk:Missouri Fur Company/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Dab links to be fixed: Fort Atkinson, Green River, Sweetwater River, William Clark
 * The lead could stand to be expanded a bit. For an article of this length, two paragraph (each about the length of the current one) is usually appropriate, although this is more of a rough estimate. The lead should be a summary of the entire body of the article, while including no new information. The lead does not have to be referenced (except for quotes and truly extraordinary claims), because it is a summary, although editors may reference it if they wish.
 * Lead, "it acted as the prototype for fur trading companies along the Missouri River until the 1820s." Why only until the 1820s, if it wasn't permanently dissolved until 1830? Also, you never re-state or further explain this information on it being a prototype in the body of the article, which needs to happen.
 * Creation of the company, "When Manuel Lisa returned to St. Louis from his first expedition to the upper Missouri River in August 1808," This is a very abrupt jump into the story. Give the reader a sentence of two of backstory, so that they know what is happening. Something like, "Manuel Lisa was an explorer and trader in the Missouri River area in the early 1800s. When he returned to St. Louis from his first expedition...". The current sentence doesn't give the reader any idea of who he was, why he was important/interesting, and what right/experience he had to be founding a fur trading company.
 * Creation of the company. The last half of the paragraph includes the words "the company" six times, which gets a bit repetitive. Any way this could be varied a bit?
 * Creation of the company, "were guns, ammunition, and whiskey." Wasn't it illegal to sell these things to the Indians? Or weren't those laws in place yet, or not for the tribes they were trading with?
 * Henry-Menard Expedition, "(including expert riflemen and American militia)" Why? Were they moving through territory known to be hostile, or was this just common practice at this time?
 * Henry-Menard Expedition, "The expedition comprised at least 150 men (including expert riflemen and American militia) and carried supplies for at least five new trading posts." "At least" repeated twice. Also, why no exact numbers, especially on the number of trading posts?
 * Chouteau Expedition, "to the Mandan." Should probably make it explicit that the Mandan were a tribe of Indians.
 * Reorganizations, "it had fewer of its original members and approximately $30,000 in valuation." Which members left? Was the lower valuation because of the members leaving, because of the losses from the expeditions, or something else?
 * Reorganizations, "yet share ownership was restricted to St. Louis owners." Does "St. Louis owners" mean people who resided in/owned property in St. Louis? Why was it restricted?
 * Reorganizations, "with few original members and less capitalization." Again, which members, why the lower capitalization?
 * Reorganizations, "news of the war reached the Louisiana Territory in 1813." Why does it matter when news of the war reached the Territory?
 * Jones Expedition, "Although the Blackfeet treated the Jones Expedition well, the expedition retreated back toward Fort Benton.[24] On May 30, 1823, the same Blackfeet attacked the expedition." Why did the expedition retreat if they were being treated well? Did the Blackfeet attack because the expedition retreated, or was the good treatment during negotiations a sham?
 * Dissolution, "as its suppliers and agents became increasingly unreliable." Why?
 * Pilcher Expedition, "all of the expedition's horses were stolen". By who?
 * Pilcher Expedition, "water destroyed". What kind of water? It snowed? Rained? They dropped them in the river?
 * Pilcher Expedition, "but their horses were stolen in February 1829." Again, by who?
 * Pilcher Expedition, "Pilcher and one other attempted to reach" They didn't attempt to reach it, they did reach it.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Adding ISBNs (or OCLCs for those that don't have ISBNs) would be helpful, although not necessary for GA status.
 * It is very interesting that over half the references are to books more than 100 years old. Scholarship can change extensively in that period of time, with new facts being discovered and new interpretations of old material being made. Are there no newer sources on this subject?
 * Possible source: Manuel Lisa biography.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See the comments above on some things that would be nice to have to flesh out the article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but there are quite a few spots where as a reader I feel that I'm left with a partial picture. I'm placing the article on hold to allow time for the above comments to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As there has been no action taken on the above issues in the more than a week since I posted the review, I am now failing this article's GA nomination. The article may be re-submitted to GAN at any time, although I would advise that the above comments are at least taken under consideration. Dana boomer (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)