# Talk:Rodney, Mississippi

Fell free to help out with my article anyway you can. I really need some pictures if anyone knows of a good place.

I am considering doing a significant update/rewrite of this article. Notes, concerns, or objections are welcome, Rjjiii (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: The NRHP template should be removed (the article is about a populated place). Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
That is a good point. I've begun drafting here, and am merging in your improvements: User:Rjjiii/sandbox6[1] Rjjiii (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources describe the area as a "ghost town". The lead currently uses "unincorporated community", but I think that gives a stronger indication of a human presence and community than the sources support. Is the concern that various meanings of "ghost town" could give the wrong impression that the area is uninhabited? (This would be false as several homes or camps on stilts near the bayou are clearly still in use.) If "ghost town" is too ambiguous because it can mean uninhabited or largely abandoned, we could just spell it out "a largely abandoned town" and optionally wikilink that to ghost town. Rjjiii (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/article/tensas-gazette-reminiscences-of-histori/151346275/
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-vicksburg-post-vicksburesque-by-vbr/151345685/
https://www.newspapers.com/article/clarion-ledger-old-once-rich-busy-rod/151345537/ (part 1 of 2) & https://www.newspapers.com/article/clarion-ledger-rodney/151354730/ (part 2 of 2)
* Jefferson County (PDF). Source Material for Mississippi History, Volume XXXII, Part I. WPA Statewide Historical Research Project. 1938 – via mlc.lib.ms.us. - typescript that's not readily searchable but some good material
cheers, jengod (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fantastic! I'm going to try work some of it into this article in a moment, Rjjiii (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is coming up soon for copyediting, and some of the images may get trimmed. Maps help understand the history of this town, but having multiple maps up at the top pushes a lot of the content. If it's paired down to one map, the 3-in-1 time periods map that Jengod added probably gives the clearest picture. Perhaps some of the extra maps can drop down into a chronological gallery in the Geography section?

 Rjjiii (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a great plan @Rjjiii. I agree that the three-in-one is the most useful to retain! If they can stay in a geography gallery awesome if not they can live in Commons and hopefully the link will be visible to anyone really interested. Thanks for organizing! jengod (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

When copy edit is done I will work on cutting down the big quotes. I love quoting from original material because I think it's an essential window into history but it's not always suited for an encyclopedia article which is apparently what we do here LOL. jengod (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll likely nominate this for a GA review soon, Rjjiii (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rodney, Mississippi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


### Pre-review
Prior to an in-depth review, I will analyze the article for any criteria for immediate failure.

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
Upon first read, this is not the case. Seems to be, at the very least, close to meeting the criteria.
It contains copyright violations
Passes Earwig, and upon comparing the "closest" match, the only similarities are names of organizations and quoted material. Seems to be an original work!
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}})
No such tags are present on the article, and they needn't be added upon first read.
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page
No history of edit warring, neither recently nor in the history of the article.
It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article
N/A.

Awesome sauce! This isn't an immediate fail.


### Review
Well-written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
 I went into the article and edited the (few) spelling and concision concerns I had. However, there are just a few clarity issues I noticed:
"In 1817, the Mississippi Territory was being admitted as a state, and Rodney was a candidate to become the state's capital but failed by three votes."
Who conducted the vote and how was it conducted?
@Jordano53: I expanded this to give more details, Rjjiii (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: This is much more clear! Love it. Jordano53 01:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
"It was the primary shipping location for a broad swath of Mississippi,"
How big of a swath of Mississippi? Does it correlate to a modern-day region of the state?
@Jordano53: Clarified in the article. It's much smaller than that and would maybe amount to three modern-day counties. The whole northern section of the state, much of the gulf coast, and many other areas had few Americans and nearly no plantations. Rjjiii (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: This is much better. Wonderful. Jordano53 01:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
"According to a former Rodney storekeeper: "The northwest or Rodney district [of Jefferson County] was the home of McGill, Hubbard, Hopkins, Mackey, Turnbull, Rabb, Bradshaw, Sisson" as well as three American Revolutionary War veterans, Porter, Johnson and Caleb Potter, veterans of the Battle of Monmouth who were reintroduced to the Marquis de Lafayette on his 1824–25 tour of the United States."
This is a little bit thrown in, especially given that the beginning half of the paragraph starts by talking about trade and currencies. Who do those last names belong to prior to the bit about the Revolutionary war veterans?
These were added by another editor, and so I don't have access to the source, but I think that the meeting described takes place just downriver in Natchez. I've commented it out rather than delete in case Jengod (or anyone with access to the source) either wants to move the facts to Natchez, Mississippi, or has some context that gives them WP:DUE weight here. Also, if part of the thought process was to give more perspective from the town's residents, I have added another angle on the hotel and a copy of the town newspaper discussed in the article (this issue has a long section on the Oakland commencement which is also relevant to that section).[4] Hope that resolves the issue, Rjjiii (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That works for me! Jordano53 17:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
With all issues addressed in this criteria, this article now  passes.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 Largely perfect. It meets the layout criteria, though there are just a couple of violations elsewhere:
The order of the elements in the lead section, namely the image, is not compliant with the MOS. I went ahead and fixed this in the article. However, you may be better off moving the image elsewhere in the article, as there is a more relevant image that represents Rodney already present in the infobox.
Thanks! I've moved that 3-map image down to the next section and somewhat rearranged the images. I've removed one photo entirely and placed all other maps in a chronological gallery under Rodney, Mississippi#Geography. Rjjiii (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Splendid! This looks good to me.
"Some residents remained in the vicinity, including an African-American man named Bob Smith, who had been marshal of Rodney "during Reconstruction days". According to histories published in the 1930s, Smith ran a "crude dining room" renowned for its "fried chicken, hot cakes, fish, figs, etc. in season" and "great stacks of savory froglegs."
The word "renowned" in this section is a little bit WP:PUFFERY. Consider a reword or quoting a review from one of those histories.
I've rephrased this section to make it more objective, and used the wording "known among travelers". The "PUFFERY" reflected a kind of storytelling romantic tone in the sources ("wonder of all the traveling men", "the topic of conversation", "famous for his crockery and bountiful supply") which is common for the time and place. Rjjiii (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand that- even in my short time being interested in Mississippi articles I've noticed that old newspapers liked to use some pretty vivacious vocabulary. I like the information in quotes better. With both issues addressed, this now  passes this criteria. Jordano53 17:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Rjjiii I agree that commenting it out for the time being is the way to go! Best, jengod (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Oof, sorry for the mix up. I did a revision history search for the "Watkins" source and just assumed the quotes were added at the same time. Thanks for the input, Rjjiii (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 A proper references tab is present, along with the appropriate in-line citations. However:
I would advise you to list texts such as the one from Logan or Haynes in a separate "sources" or "bibliography" tag (whichever wording you prefer), and let those short citations appear in the "references" section. I believe you fully cited the first instance and then short cited the rest, so I don't believe this to be too big a switch.
Done. I've also moved Powell (1938) down since the named citation covered 5 pages, but each use only covered 1 to 3 of them. Rjjiii (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Love it! This  passes the criteria now. Jordano53 17:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
 Plenty of in-line citations, all information in article is followed by a proper citation. The citations themselves are reliable and notable. I conducted a spot check of a few online sources, and found no close paraphrasing while still relating to the reference.
it contains no original research; and
 No original research, all information from sources
it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
 As noted above, no copyvios.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 Sure does! Covers the community in great detail!
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 Stays on track, only covering the community and its immediate surrounding area.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
 Neutral indeed. There doesn't seem to be bias in its writing.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 As noted above, stable article with no edit warring.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 No non-free content, and all Commons material has proper copyright info.
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Relevant and properly captioned


### In summary
This is a fantastically-written article! There are a few issues mentioned above that require attention before I can pass it, but I trust that these are quick fixes. I was also about to say that this would make a killer DYK, but noticed you already got it there! Jordano53 23:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Just making a couple of adjustments and additional comments. Jordano53 00:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll go through the formatting first, and then come back to the clarity issues, Rjjiii (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
There are still 2 clarity points to address. I need to check the cited source out from the library first to make sure I don't need to adjust the page numbers or cite an additional source. In an hour or so, I'll start getting ready for Christmas and should be able to get to those 2 by this weekend. Happy holidays, Rjjiii (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you, too! Jordano53 04:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the patience. I've tried to clarify both point in the article.[5] In those edits, I also switched to a more chronological set of maps cropped to the same area and slightly expanded a few paragraphs. Rjjiii (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: I've checked your revisions and they are up to standards. I did a once-over of the article and all looks well. I am more than happy to pass this article. Congratulations and thank you for your fine work on telling the story of a fascinating historic community. Jordano53 01:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate the kind words and the feedback on the article! Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, the pdf in this talk page section was removed as "Decorative and unnecessary". My intention was to clearly link the newspapers as artifacts of the time (which I guess the primary source citations in that section already do). I'm thinking about adding the links below (and a link to the Rodney Gazette if I can find scans online) to the bottom of the article. Would this still seem unnecessary?

"Southern Telegraph (Rodney, Miss.) 1834-1838". Chronicling America – via Library of Congress.
"The Rodney Telegraph (Rodney, Miss.) 1838-1840". Chronicling America – via Library of Congress.
Rjjiii (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: What section of the article would you add the links to, per WP:USCITIES? --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
"Further reading" or "External links" Rjjiii (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)