# Talk:Fort Scott National Historic Site

The article includes the sentence (emphasis added):

It was hope it would place the Cherokee and provide some defense against the rampaging Osages

This makes no sense. Clearly "hope" should be "hoped". Also, in context, I'm guessing that instead of place the article meant placate, but I don't have any knowledge of the situation and thus don't feel comfortable changing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.251.99 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 

Oops.  Fixed.  Thanks.--Bedford Pray 00:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Scott National Historic Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


### Initial review
My preference is to leave the WP:lead until last, review the body of the article first and then go back to the lead; however in this case I will start with the lead first.
I'm happy to acknowledge that work has been put into producing this article and in providing references. However, at the present time, I don't regard this as a GA-class article, its a C-class / B-class article. Possibly a B-class article, but no more than that.
I'm willing to put the GAN On Hold, so that there is an opportunity to improve the article up to GA-class.

The Lead -
As an Introduction is OK, it puts the site into a USA national perspective.
As a summary of the article, it claims to cover  the Permanent Indian Frontier, the Mexican-American War, Bleeding Kansas, the American Civil War, and the expansion of railroads; however, only the Bleeding Kansas is mentioned by name.
It claims to cover "protects 20 historic structures, a parade ground, and five acres (20,000 m²) of restored tallgrass prairie....inside the city of Fort Scott". However, only two buildings (duplexes) are mentioned in the body of the article; the parade ground is just about mentioned; but restored prairie and the City of Fort Scott are not mentioned at all.
History-
The subsection titles make some sort of sense, as they cover specific time periods, but I would ask whether they make sense in respect of what the Lead sets out to do?
Bleeding Kansas -
Subsection is inadequate. It vaguely refers to some conflict called the Bleeding Kansas but fails to adequately describe (or at least summarise it) what it is. The single paragraph devoted to this topic tends to suggest three things: it's not important, the reader knows all about it or there is nothing to more tell and/or the editor(s) of this article don't know anything about it.
This Section has been Improved.Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a vague statement: "During this time, Fort Scott would see murder and attempted arson", with a citation, but no additional information.
Army returns -  DonePyrotec (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Presumably, from the lead, this section is intended to cover American Civil War and the expansion of railroads?
The first paragraph fails to name the American Civil War and appears to regards it as an unimportant national topic, it is vaguely named as great conflict that arose between 1861 to 1865, and discussed in local terms (importance?) as a staging post, depot, hospital and prison.
Almost identical comments apply to railroads. The topic is dismissed as: "There were some conflicts, and by the spring of 1873 the troops would be pulled away from Fort Scott for good".
Today
Best described as totally inadequate. I hardly regard "On October 19, 1978, Fort Scott became a National Historic Site, encompassing 17 acres (69,000 m2). Today the fort is open throughout the year, save for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day. Visitation was 25,528 in 2005" as informative.
Today seems to have stopped sometime about 2004/5 looking at the statistics given.
It fails to describe what the visitor can expect at the site.  DonePyrotec (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The National Parks Service is not mentioned, other than in the Lead.  DonePyrotec (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See also
Its not clear what relevance some of these have to the article, other than padding out another section to make the article appear to be longer than it is.
Necessary Improvements

At present I would fail the article for lack of Broadness of coverage (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria).
There is no mention of the site between 1873 and today (or even up to 2004/5).
No mention of the appearance of the City of Fort Scott.
No mention of the creation/formation of the area as a "National Historic site".
Improved.Pyrotec (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No mention of what the Historic site covers (other than in the lead).
No mention of restored tallgrass prairie.
No mention of the National Parks Service.  DonePyrotec (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No discussion of the National (if any) importance of the site (other than in the lead).
References are barely adequate.
I would strong suggest that the article's lead is re-read and the questions asked, are these topics, i.e ...reserves, protects, and interprets the nationally significant historic resources related to the opening of the West to white settlement, the Permanent Indian Frontier, the Mexican-American War, Bleeding Kansas, the American Civil War, and the expansion of railroads." The article does not adequately cover these topics for the non-American reader, I'm not certain that it adequately covers them for the North American reader.
Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just came back from overnight trip; will look into these "problems" tomorrow.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've been fairly critical about the article, but I think that it has the potential to make GA, which is why I've put it on hold rather than failing it. At present, I'd like to see it completed by 23rd May, but we can discuss that later, if necessary.Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I got busy with other things, but am attempting a go with doing it tonight.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


### GA review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A reasonable WP:GAN candidate that has been pared back over the life of the WP:GAN, presumably due to lack of information.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
More would be good.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
More would be good.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
The scope has been pared back during the life of the WP:GAN
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The article has been improved over the life of the WP:GAN and for that reason I passing it. The scope appears to have been cut back, for instance no real mention of railroads now occurs in the article, although these were mentioned in the original WP:Lead. Having checked the sources, one of these appears to be the Kansas and Neosho Valley Railroad, but no wikipedia article appears to exist.
Pyrotec (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fort Scott National Historic Site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616150142/http://ksbyways.org/military/index.html to http://ksbyways.org/military/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)