Talk:Sandy Creek Expedition/GA1

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

Reviewer: Garnet-Septagon (talk · contribs) 12:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. Apologies for the delay in getting it seen to.

Quick-fail criteria
Not a long way from meeting any of the six GA criteria This file requires a US public domain tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ostenacopainting.jpg No cleanup banners Stable No previous GA nomination

As the image of Ostenaco is listed as public domain, I assume it won't be an issue to add a public domain tag for the US, so I'm not going to quick-fail this nomination based just on that. However, it should be addressed as part of this process.

Reference spot checks
For this section I'm looking at the revision as of 22:07 on 10 August 2023

Spot checks are a GA requirement; I'll pick a few citations and check to see that the source correctly supports the citation.

FN 2 (a,d,f): These should have page references to be consistent with the others. FN 2b: Source does not say the fort was to protect the Cherokee from specifically the Shawnee and Catawba. It also doesn't appear to mention the fort constructed in eastern Tennessee: only forts in Virginia and South Carolina are mentioned. FN 2c: Does not mention the present-day counties the trail passes through. Does not mention the actual route they took either, just that "some of the many north-south "war roads"" passed through the river corridor. Should change "February" to "winter" to more accurately reflect the source. It's unclear what else in this paragraph should be covered by this source and what should be covered by FN 9. FN 4a: Says it was retaliation for the destruction of the Roanoke settlement, and doesn't mention others. Also gives a date of 1757. FN 4 (b-f): Need page refs. FN 9a: (using source at OpenLibrary: OL6922210W for this) Mentions Ingles' visit and suggestion but not that it's the main Shawnee village or its location. FN 9b: No mention of this in source FN 9c FN 9d: Mentions a second expedition was "contemplated", but not that it was in early 1757. FN 9e FN 9f: Not mentioned FN 11: The source specifically says that we don't really know how many men were sent, nor does it mention the counties. FN 12a (using source at OpenLibrary: historyoftazewel00pendrich for this): Not mentioned that Washington selected Lewis FN 12b: Page is mostly Preston's journal which does not support the previous sentences. FN 12c: Quotation is on page 218: are your page references correct? FN 12 (d, e): Needs page references FN 14 (a, b): This is the website of a historical re-enactment group and is not a reliable source. FN 16: Needs a non-primary source FN 18a: Not clear what this adds that isn't in the second source FN 18b

There are so many issues with these citations that I'm going to have to mark this GA nomination as failed. Please read WP:INTEGRITY and ensure your sources directly support exactly what's in the article. Additionally, this article relies on a lot of primary sources - while I like how the primary quotations add flavour, beware of WP:OR and MOS:EDITORIAL when fixing it up. Finally, the references themselves need to be consistent, with page numbers. It is typical only to make the work's title a hyperlink, not the whole reference.

I think this could be a good solid article, but it really needs a large amount of thorough work.