Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Yellowstone/archive1

Fort Yellowstone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it will soon become a potential Featured Article Candidate

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

"The U.S. Army presence in Yellowstone 1886-1918, not only established a lasting infrastructure called Fort Yellowstone" - grammar
Done Ranges should use endashes
Done "legal authority to maintain and protect park's natural features" - grammar
Done Wikilink poaching? US Congress?
Done When a MDY date occurs within a sentence, include a comma after the year
"at a cost of approximately $700,000" - any idea how much that is today? ($700,000 USA in 1913 equals approximately $16,000,000 USA in 2013)--MONGO 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done "The increase in size of the army contingent along with increasing visitation, required almost continuous expansion" - grammar
"The initial wave of construction between 1891-97 was representative of typical U.S. Army posts of the time...and typical of most western military posts of the period" - seems redundant
Done "the largest structures in the fort where built" - grammar
Done "Proactive actions by the army in stopping poaching in the park led to the passing of the Lacey Act of 1894, which established legal protection for the wildlife in the park and provided remedies for dealing with violators." - source?
Source(s) for second para of Transition section?

In general, I'm seeing a need for a general copy-edit and WP:MOS consistency check. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO:

A few paragraphs nearer the end of the article could use refs in the body of the paragraph instead of just at the end. I assume that the source for thses paragrapghs is the one used at the end, so I'd just move the source higher up the paragraph and add <ref=name> to the rest of said comments.
I've gone and redone all the references to have a uniform format...
There are a few instances of repeat comments or expressions...in the effort to format the references, I adjusted two sentences so their meaning had some variation on the same theme, as in the second paragraph in this diff
I'm going to see if I can recruit a third party copyeditor to review the sentence structure and prose...as I have edited a fair amount on this article, more eyes would be helpful.

Comments from Bishonen

(Full disclosure: yeah, MONGO recruited me.) I've only really looked at the lead section yet; I'm a bit busy, I'll be back, and try to be more helpful, but I'm already a little worried about the prose. It's rather choppy, and… I don't know, it looks like it's written a bit cautiously and in fear of not being correct, and with a not very large vocabulary. The number of "constructions" and "structures" in the lead alone is staggering. And the first thing that happens to the reader is that they stumble over a parenthesis; that's not smooth or inviting. There's a bit of committeespeak altogether: "The military commanders furthered the evolution of park policies and conservation measures regarding backcountry patrol, access improvement, wildlife protection and management, protection of natural features, law enforcement and development of a ranger force, headquarters area development, visitor services and facility development, educational and a host of other activities". There must be a more straightforward way of putting that. And why did the commanders in particular do all that, why not simply the Army?

I'm sorry to be complaining instead of copyediting; but it's difficult for an outsider (and non-American) to know what's hiding behind some formulations. For instance, it's probably not the intention to call the whole list of good things achieved by the military in the green quote (backcountry patrol, access improvement, etc etc etc) conservation measures (although the syntax implies it) but some of them are, right? (Or maybe the syntax implies that they're either park policies or conservation measures, I'm not sure. Though I am sure that some of the things on the list are neither, e. g. headquarters area development.) It might be easier for the original writer, who doesn't suffer from such doubts, to unravel the sentence. I'll have another look later, if perhaps you'd like first to have a go at the things I've indicated here, and try to… well, I know it's an encyclopedia, but try to write in a more relaxed way? You're supposed to be having fun here! :-) Bishonen | talk 14:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Lead section, additional comment: Well done, MONGO, nicely cleared up. I've changed a few more phrases. Another thing: no doubt the Campaign hat deserves a mention, but perhaps not in the lead (which is a summary of the most important content of the article) and absolutely not in the most emphatic place of all: the final sentence. Compare Bathos. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I am sure you're correct about that. As a former park ranger, I'm biased in that the hat is a symbol that Americans associate almost exclusively with National Park Rangers (though State Troopers also oftentimes wear them). My thinking of having it in the lead was to provide a visual rather than non-visual (like policies) connection between the army presence and the modern era...and the hat is definitely a carry-over from the army presence. But not beholden to this issue and it can surely be removed.--MONGO 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities section: My inquiring mind got hung up on the "snowshoe cabins". Apparently the army built lots of them. Wouldn't somebody on the ground (HINT HINT MONGO) like to create an article about this kind of house? Or at least complement the footnote that states "At the time, long wooden skis were called 'snowshoes'" with a reference? I don't doubt the truth of it, but our snowshoe article has no concept of any skis. And, I'm sure this sounds very ignorant to people who're at all local, but what exactly does the term "snowshoe cabin" refer to — were they actually (or conceptually) made out of long skis? That doesn't sound so likely for any more permanent or robust shelter. Look at the Pass Creek Snowshoe Cabin — obviously a sturdy structure, "originally built by trail crews on their own initiative as a more permanent and bear-proof accommodation than tents". So where do the snowshoes come in? Bishonen | talk 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I can provide a source for this. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… pity you have to be signed up to Questia to see it. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The snowshoe cabins were possibly accessible in the winter only by way of snowshoes. The snows were too deep to easily reach on foot or even by way of horses...and over-snow motorized transport in the U.S. wasn't yet developed or was in its earliest stages.--MONGO 18:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the name might mean "you need snowshoes/skis to get to them"! But I can't seem to get anything helpful out of Google, which merely overwhelms me with hits to snowshoe cabin rental offers. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

FYI, here's the text of the source. The explanation of the term "snowshoes" is addressed in most Fort Yellowstone sources. There was no word ski in the English language! The word snowshoe was used for ski throughout the mountain West. "The celebrated 'Norwegian snow-shoes,' or 'Norway skates,' " wrote Charles W. Hendel, "are from 8 to 12 feet long, 31/2 to 4 inches wide, and 1 1/4 inches thick in the center. . . with a spring worked in so that without weights they rest on the heels and the points." They were concave and grooved on the underside which was also burned with tar to a mahoganylike finish. For racing, the shoes were 101/2 to 13 1/2 feet in length, from 3 3/4 to 4 1/4 inches in width, wider on the front part than on the back. "So great have been the improvements during the past few years. . . that they now appear to have reached perfection." Hendel is a reliable witness; he was a surveyor and mining engineer who traveled Plumas and Sierra counties in the gold rush years. Hendel used the adjective Norway or Norwegian to describe the long boards. Although Swedes and Finns were among the immigrants who skied, by the late nineteenth century skiing had become part of the Norwegian national culture in a different way than elsewhere in Scandinavia. Therefore, when Scandinavians arrived in ski country, it was only natural that skis were described as "Norwegian." That terminology also distinguished them from the racquet snowshoes, only used at lower altitudes. William Brewer in his journal for 1862 noted, "The only way of getting about is on snowshoes, not the great broad Canadian ones. . . but the Norwegian ones." --Mike Cline (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, I'm really busy these days, but I'll weigh in after this gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further from MONGO:

While it doesn't bother me, and I even suggested doing so earlier to accommodate for the wealth if images, galleries are generally best avoided by shuttling off extra images to Commons...
I've done a lot of copy editing myself but the article still seems to have some minor repetitions on the theme regarding the army's contributions. Maybe since I wasn't in the military but was a park ranger, I'm finding that somewhat overly stressed, but my opinion is probably biased. I would perhaps make the army's role more of a groundwork or foundation that the park service used but has greatly expanded subsequently...maybe the references don't back that premise up so it may not be possible...again, my opinion may be biased.
I found one dead link to an external source, but that may have been my bad when I cleaned up the reference formating.
The article is really close and I believe that it is ready to be submitted to Feature Article candidates in 2 weeks unless another chimes in here at Peer Review.--MONGO 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

interesting is in the eye of the beholder

Although this peer review is improving the article, I always get concerned when content is removed based on one editor's view that it isn't interesting. In this case, the removal of the rationale for the chapel ignores the significant backstory as to how the chapel came to pass. Haynes, Hampton, Culpin And Watry all devote significant paragraphs to the story. Albeit in different ways, Mongo and I are close to this subject and I think Hhe would agree that Fort Yellowstone was more than just a collection of buildings. It was a tight community of civilians and military families pretty much isolated from the rest of Montana and certainly from the rest of Wyoming. The story of that community and their efforts to improve life at Fort Yellowstone can't get lost by removing content that seems uninteresting. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the phrase I removed with the argument that it wasn't interesting enough, "at the urging of Captain John Pitcher and Judge John Meldrum", added some flavour of the story of the tight-knit community and their efforts to improve life at Fort Yellowstone? It didn't do anything like that for me. Perhaps the sentence needs to be fuller (more flavourful) instead of shorter, in order to convey more of the "significant backstory" of the chapel. Anyway, as my edit summary also implied, please do revert that removal (and any other alterations you disapprove) ad libitum . Bishonen | talk 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm torn on the significance of who was behind the effort to have the chapel built, but leaning towards inclusion. Like other places around the world in that period, the chapel, church, synagogue or whatever gave the community a focal point and added a sense of permanance. Since this is Wikipedia, I always ask for bold reviews and bold (and even mundane) edits...and Bishonen is one I trust unconditionally to ask for feedback and article improvements.--MONGO 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Here's just one such paragraph on the chapel. This is from the NRHP nomination: The chapel, completed by January 1913, was the last building erected during the military period in Yellowstone and reflected the fort's status as the center of a community as well as an army post. Previously, religious services had been conducted in the troop mess hall, the post exchange, or private residences, as was consistent with army policy. John W. Meldrum, U.S. Commissioner at Yellowstone, voiced his belief that it was “a burning shame” there was no church where Sunday services and events such as burials could take place. Beginning in 1905, Meldrum enlisted the support of the park acting superintendent [Pitcher], Wyoming senator Francis E. Warren, and others in a campaign to acquire funding for the chapel. As military appropriations did not include such construction, it was a departure from standard procedure and required a special appropriation from Congress. The pleasing design of the building, reminiscent of ubiquitous small frame churches in New England, incorporated lightly dressed native sandstone. The simple interior with plastered walls and exposed trusses resulted in a harmonious composition, considered by many to be the most beautiful of the army buildings at Fort Yellowstone. The chapel was operated on a nondenominational basis, a policy continued after the National Park Service took control of the building. Other sources reflect a similar narrative. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about focus. I wouldn't have removed any of it if it had focused (concisely) on the "fort's status as the center of a community" and on there being a campaign. That's the sort of thing I meant when I suggested above that the sentence might need to be fuller instead of shorter in order to convey the "significant backstory". Bishonen | talk 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I went and readded the names and some details in a compromise...how is the article looking now?--MONGO 18:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]