Template:Did you know nominations/Ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Fuebaey (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams

 * ... that the only naval battle ever fought in Oklahoma was the ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams on the Arkansas River in 1864?
 * Reviewed: Cape Santiago

Created by Bruin2 (talk). 7&amp;6=thirteen Self nominated at 20:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Driveby comment: Isn't there a rule about disqualifying any DYKs with a dispute tag on them? If the "term paper" problem has been addressed, the tag should be removed (with a relevant edit summary, of course). If not, then this article may not be DYK material.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The tag was apparently applied by Anomie Bot. Almost any article can be improved after more individuals have seen it, but usually readers are helpful enough to say what they find to be objectionable.I don't understand how or to whom I should address the issue of the "term paper." How does one talk to a bot? It's the first time I've encountered this problem. Is there a specific problem that needs to be corrected? I would appreciate more specificity, rather than shooting in the dark to correct it. Bruin2 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that the tag has been removed, let me try a review.
 * Terrific hook! The idea of a naval battle in a landbound state is such a grabber. Best of all, it is cited per requirements.
 * You are missing a couple of cites yet&mdash;one for first para under Background, and one for first para under Impact. While you are at it, the bare URLs for cites (1) and (2) need to be "clothed".
 * However, the article does not seem to be a 5 times expansion of an existing article. This disqualifies the article from DYK. This does not disqualify it for promotion via the assessment process.
 * No further check made.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have restored the "term paper" tag, which appears to have been put there by a regular reviewer/assessor, who in the course of assessing the article (see the talk page—checks were made against B-class, and two areas were found not to be at a B-class level), added the template to the article. Bruin2, to my eye, the intro, if nothing else, does not follow Wikipedia article guidelines. A term paper starts by setting the historical scene; an encyclopedia article starts out by immediately talking about the subject of the article, the ambush. This absolutely needs to be fixed if the DYK nomination is to succeed. As for Georgejdorner's review, I'm afraid there are significant issues with it even beyond the continuing misplacement of review icons (I've removed the one next to the hook, since review icons are supposed to go with the actual review, but not moved it elsewhere, given the other problems). Since the article was created in user space, and as DYKcheck notes, it was moved from User:Bruin2/J. R. Williams raid on October 5, that means it was effectively new on that date (moves from user space or draft space to article space are the official "new"/"creation" date), and it therefore meets DYK's newness requirement. Plus, at 5710 prose characters, it's well above the minimum required. Once the article has been cleaned up and made more encyclopedic, it ought to do quite well at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This article was created on 8 September 2014, but not nominated by 15 September. By my reading of the rules, that disqualified it from consideration under the new article rule. The imported text of the October revisions did not amount to a five times revision when I considered that. Hence, my above comments.
 * However, now that I found the proviso that articles moved from user space can be considered "new", I withdraw my objections. Please note, however, that the relevant sentence does not regard that as creation of a new article, only that it be considered "new".
 * Also please note, that while I dabbled in the DYK process three years ago, I am still pretty much a rookie reviewer. Rookie or not, the DYK rules require a QPQ from me if I wish to submit my own DYKs. I do my best, with no malice intended.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I just began a spot check for close paraphrasing with the first source, and the Attack section, third paragraph, final sentence, contains an actual copyvio: it is identical to the 31-word final sentence in that source. This will have to be fixed. When that is done, Bruin2, and you've made sure there aren't any more copyright issues, please post here, and we can check the term paper issue along with others. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have revised the Attack section to eliminate the unintended copyvio and to avoid anything I thought might be considered too close paraphrasing. I don't see anything in the other sections that seem problematic, but woul appreciate your continuing your review. Thanks for catching these. Bruin2 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the referencing, notes, etc. Also copy edited and rewrote the lead paragraph and much of the text. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, now that article has gone through major revisions. Reviewer should check to see whether the term paper or close paraphrasing noted earlier are still issues or not. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Second driveby comment. Every paragraph in Background section still needs to be closed by a cite. And just why the heck is that section in the middle of the article?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Review Symbol confirmed.svg New article (moved from user space). New enough, long enough, well cited article; hook is directly cited to and expressly supported by four sources, includiing , and implicitly by all of the many soruces in the article.
 * QPQ confirmed.
 * I personally reorganized the article (rewrote the lead and made the text largely chronological), reformatted the text and added citations, modifying their format. Whole article has a proper lead, and is not a "term paper".  There are citations in every paragraph, with the small exception of the first paragraph in the "Background" section. I don't know what Georgejdorner is talking about, but the articles reformatting should (I think) take care of whatever issue he saw.
 * IMHO the quality of the hook is very high: interesting, very hooky and capturing the essence of the article. If one were compelled to criticize the hook, I suppose one could add that Oklahoma is "landlocked" (assuming some readers won't know that).  No copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Good to go. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Alt 1 ... that the only naval battle ever fought in Oklahoma was the ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams by Cherokee Confederate Soldiers on the Arkansas River in 1864? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the references I consulted about this event specifically named Choctaws and Creeks as major participants, and by this time Stand Watie commanded all Confederate Native American troops in Indian Territory. Alt 1 may be inviting more criticism by implying that the Cherokees were the only troops involved in this engagement. Is there a really good rationale for this change? Bruin2 (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think an independent reviewer is needed, given the extensive edits made by 7&amp;6=thirteen—so extensive that I've added a DYKmake credit. I would like to strongly suggest that Bruin2 supply a source citation for the first Background paragraph—DYKs are generally not approved with "citation needed" templates still extant; the information there is such that is should be cited, even if DYK's rule of thumb about one citation per paragraph didn't exist. Also, if Alt 1 is to be considered, it needs review by someone else anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks BlueMoonset for putting me in as a creator. 7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As to Alt 1, I only thought it was hookier—native American participation in the Civil War was much bigger than many might imagine. I agree that the historical marker acknowledges other tribes, although at least one of the sources suggests most of them had ceased to participate.  But I'm not wedded to the language, and the original hook is fine with me. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have taken so long to respond about the citation required comment. We may be carrying this into too much detail about steamboat construction that does not advance the main article. For now, I will put the info on the article Talk page, so that all reviewers may consider whether it should be added to the main article. Let me know what you think. Note that the factoid about wood fuel appears in at least two other Wikipedia articles without an in-line citation. I also include a brief discussion of paddle wheel location, since there is no direct information about this steam boat's design. Bruin2 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bruin2, I would be happy with an inline source citation that covered the first two or three sentences; I'm not so concerned about steamboat construction but about the summary earlier in the paragraph covering Union control of the Arkansas River and using it for transporting supplies. That's the scale of information I was looking for. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

QPQ was done. Article was new enough when nominated. The article meets length requirements, doesn't read like an essay, and passes a COPYVIO check. Both the main hook (132 characters) and ALT1 (165 characters) are short enough. The claim appears in the article and is referenced in The Oklahoman and Tulsa World. I'd prefer the word "battle" be replaced with "engagement" as no reliable sources seem to state definitively it was a battle and the narrative sounds like a simple ambush of an undefended supply ship. I'd be more impressed if sources other than Okies corroborated this claim but that's not necessary for our standards. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)