Talk:Seminole burning/GA1

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

Reviewer: Spudlace (talk · contribs) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article. Spudlace (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Well written:

(to be continued...)
 * The Seminole people were removed from Florida to the Indian Territory in the nineteenth century
 * The term removed may not be understood without the wikilink. Can it be described as "forcibly displaced from Florida to the Indian Territory in Oklahoma by the Indian Removal Act of 1830"?
 * I am not a fan of this. I have made some adjustments, but I think removal is a widely known term, and it still carries with it (if one doesn't know what it means) the connotations of force, especially in the revised version.
 * n 1866, the Five Civilized Tribes (which included the Seminole) underwent the Reconstruction Treaties, which cut up their previously extensive land claims in the eastern part of modern-day Oklahoma.
 * How about "In 1866, the onerous Reconstruction Treaties divided the land claims of the Five Civilized Tribes (including the Seminole) to large areas of the eastern region of modern-day Oklahoma."
 * I don't want to call the treaties onerous, because that is a point of view that assumes they shouldn't have lost land after their alliances with the Confederates, or that it was unduly wide in scope. I have added some additional information.
 * By this time, most of the Seminole had transitioned into becoming a pastoralist people.
 * most of the Seminole people had transitioned to a pastoral lifestyle.
 * Yes - whether "pastoral" or "pastoralist" is correct, I am not sure, so feel free to amend
 * Maud sits in Pottawatomie County, then on the Oklahoma side of its boundary with the Indian Territory.
 * Maud is introduced abruptly. I'm not able to think of a fix right now but I will come back to it after the source check.
 * Tried to fix Urve (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The changes to the removal sentence are an improvement. The article overall still needs more work to meet the well-written criteria. I can give you some general input if you don't find more specific suggestions to be as helpful. The political background section should be focused on the article subject. It introduced other murders. Are they background for this lynching? Especially "a man named Israel C. McGlothlin was lynched after being accused of murder: He was hanged alive three times" - Was he eventually killed? Would dividing the Removal background and the background about extrajudicial killings into subsections be helpful?
 * Replying inline - please move if you don't appreciate this, I just find it easier to track the changes. Thanks for seeing it as an improvement - it's hard to find the way to introduce this all, and if you have thoughts, please do share. I find specific suggestions helpful, just in some cases I don't agree with the proposal, nothing personal. Sometimes I don't even know why I disagree :)
 * I recognize that the political background section does not explicitly discuss the lynching, but Littlefield makes it a point to give a historical survey of the Territories and lynching in them. There should be two main takeaways here, I think (but we can't state them explicitly, and Littlefield doesn't): That this crime was committed in the midst of white settlement and encroachment of land claimed by tribes, and that the crime was not an aberration. In fact, the crime was routine.
 * I would be happy to add a section to political background for lynchings, but my concern is that it would visually be very short, or I would have to add much more information. And if I add much more, that would detract from the article itself - do you think, or am I wrong? Articles like lynching in Oklahoma are on my long-term to-do list, where that information can be collected.
 * McGlothlin is specifically discussed by Littlefield - it feels significant, and it is important for readers to understand that lynching was a human ordeal; unnamed victims of attempted lynchings erase humanity, so I chose to select a named instance to demonstrate the general point. He survived, edited. Urve (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thomas McGeisey is introduced in section 1.2 but we don't find out who he is until section 1.3.
 * Good point. This has always frustrated me, so I have made a change - not sure if it is the best way. Urve (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't mind another specific suggestion shouldn't Lincoln McGeisey and Palmer Sampson were the boys lynched. be "the boys who were lynched"?
 * I think either are OK, but as your suggestion makes clear, the current wording is a bit lyrical, so changed. Urve (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Lynched boys" section is unfocused. Are the details about errors in the ways names were rendered in oral history Background. Same question for the name of the sister. Maybe there would be a better section for this? The final one line paragraph states that various sources call them "boys". It should be explained why this is background information. You used the word "though" to introduce this information. This seems significant but I can't figure out why without consulting the sources you used. Is this a criticism of the media coverage calling them "boys"? Can you tell us more about what Warrick says about it? You also use the term "boys" in the section heading. Please explain this or consider altering the section title.
 * Hm, about the names. I agree with you that it is unfocused. I originally had this all as footnotes. It is important information (especially for those researching the burning), but neither background nor relevant to the crime, and it doesn't fit elsewhere. I've moved to footnotes, let me know what you think. I personally think that this is an extremely significant choice by some authors, since it infantalizes the teens who were murdered, and there are important historical racial elements to this word. No authors critically evaluate it, though, so not much we can say unfortunately.
 * About "though": I'm not sure how else to describe this. I wouldn't consider 18 and 17 year olds "boys", but that is what most sources seem to say (including Littlefield). I changed the heading and moved this into a footnote without the "though", but I kept the description of them as boys in the prose; let me know what you think. Warrick is just a general account of the crime, and they use "boys" to describe it: A mob of 300 whites took the boys to a Baptist brush arbor church ... and Investigation showed that not only had the two boys been burned at the stake ... Urve (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede is a definite issue. It does not at this moment give an overview of the article. It would need to be improved for the article to pass. I can put the article on hold if you want to continue working on it. Spudlace (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, lead writing is the toughest for me. I've taken a stab, but amendments and suggestions (specific or general) always welcome. Thanks for continuing the review, and so quickly! Urve (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,, just coming back to ask if you would like to see more improvements to the article after the changes. Urve (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it meets the well-written criteria. "tried to resist the heat before dying" - while he was on fire? How? The article says "struggled against the flames" - that is much better. I really don't want you to be frustrated by what may feel like an unattainable standard. I just think that sometimes "well-written" takes time especially for the lede. I also think this article will pass on future reviews, just not right now. My other comment is to consider if the title should move to "The Seminole burning". I see it used as a proper noun in reliable sources. This is something that should be sorted out before promotion. Spudlace (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed the lead description of Sampson. "How?"? Littlefield doesn't say he was on fire the entire time he resisted.
 * The title is correct. See Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). It's not a proper noun, and newspapers all refer to it as the "Seminole burning", lowercase, in prose. So does Littlefield (p. vii). In any event, this section of the MOS is not a GA requirement. Urve (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional reviewer comments:
 * The lede gives the date of the killing twice, in the first paragraph and third paragraph. It only needs to be mentioned once.
 * Changed, though I do think it is important to highlight this was in between days. Infobox suffices
 * "Live burning"?
 * What is the question? "Lynching by burning" is ambiguous, because many lynchings had the bodies burned afterwards, but being burned alive is rarer. "Lynching by being burned alive" is wordy. Alternatives?
 * Is the description of the man who killed Mary Leard important enough for the lede?
 * Other than he was a man (i.e., not a boy), no
 * "Mass mob" the definition of mob is a large crowd of people. Mass mob seems redundant here. Repeated later in the article as a term used by Brundage, its meaning is not explained. Why does Brundage feel the mob lacked the outrage or desire for revenge? What does he mean by "mass mob"?
 * The general definition of mob is not accurate for "mob" when used in the context of lynching, which as far as I can tell, is usually just defined as three. "Mass mob" shouldn't be in the lead, because the formation wasn't mass, it was private.
 * Brundage's full definition and typology is not in the scope of this article. Insofar as it is relevant, I've made changes. The basic point is that Littlefield believes that they lacked the emotional element required under Brundage's definition, which is personal: A slight against the person themselves, their property, or their community. Made changes. I'm planning on developing that article later, which is where further information should be. It's mentioned only because a reviewer of Littlefield's book highlights it, so it seems sources think it is important.
 * Capitals are not usually used after colons which occurs in the "Formation" section of the article.
 * conforming to MOS:COLON is not a GA requirement.
 * The "Violence" section looks good except for the very long sentence beginning "McGeisey and Sampson were chained together at the neck while held in custody..." which should be broken up into at least two, and maybe even three sentences.
 * Agreed, split
 * Go over the "Lynching" section again. "Against the bright nighttime moon" Bright is subjective, moons often occur at night.
 * Littlefield makes it a point to highlight this, but (other than moons often occurring at night) agreed, changed
 * Consider breaking up the very long sentence about the tabernacle.
 * Yes
 * Consider starting a new paragraph "They were shackled..." and combine it with the account of the burning.
 * sure
 * The prosecution section begins with a description of media coverage. It's interesting information that is not about the prosecutions. The money damages from the federal government doesn't connect with the previous paragraph about newspaper coverage.
 * added a section, moved, renamed
 * The complications in the investigation says many witnesses were reluctant to provide testimony. Is that because "many of the Seminole witnesses did not speak English, and at least one witness was intimidated by a mob and forced to destroy his deposition"?
 * No, it's a list of problems. Littlefield does not explain why the Seminole witnesses did not want to testify, just that they had high "sentiment ... against prosecution".
 * The sentence about investigating as a criminal conspiracy should come before the details of the problems with the investigation.
 * okay

Spudlace (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * replied inline Urve (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the lede meets the criteria right now. The contextual links in the lede include death by burning and the name of the town the lynchmob first formed, but more context for the first paragraph about where the boys were lynched and where Mary Leard's murder took place are not stated. Seminole land could be one. The link to necrophilia is not helpful context. It's more important to give an overview with context. The murder happened and the mob took it upon themselves to wrongfully punish two innocent persons of the same ethnicity as the murderer. If you can, pare down some of the extraneous details and say more about why the Federal government responded so quickly to this. I hope this is not too disappointing and that you continue to work on the article. Peer review is helpful for more input. Spudlace (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is quite dismissive. Urve (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)