Template:Did you know nominations/Buchanan's Station

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 Bruxton (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Buchanan's Station

(
)
c.1936 view of site; log building on the right is a remnant of the 1780s fort.[1]
c.1936 view of site; log building on the right is a remnant of the 1780s fort.[1]
  • ALT0 ... that an overloaded blunderbuss that exploded when fired was mistaken for a canon and scared the 300+ Indian attackers at Buchanan's Station (pictured), into retreat? Source: Slate, Mike; Buchanan's Station : The battle that saved the Cumberland settlements; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022
  • ALT1: ... that 15-20 sharpshooters at Buchanan's Station (pictured), withstood an attack by a Native American confederation of over 300 warriors, including Tecumseh? Source: Slate, Mike; Buchanan's Station : The battle that saved the Cumberland settlements; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022

Created by GenQuest (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC).

Background discussion
*
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was new enough at nomination, is long enough, is well source, and is neutral. In terms of plagiarism - there is some close phrasing in the image caption that earwig picked up - it would be good if that could change. Additionally, the image caption is too long for a DYK, so please could it be shortened? Lajmmoore (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: These concerns have been addressed, Thank you. GenQuest "scribble" 16:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore: Please let me know what more is needed to pass this? Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 00:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest: thanks for the reminder, caption and editing request are fulfilled Lajmmoore (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Could you please take a quick look at this article from a WikiProject Military History point of view? First of all, is it misnamed per WikiProject convention (i.e., should it be "Battle of Buchanan's Station" or similar)? Any other adjustments needed to conform to basic MH standards? (Thought of Kevin1776 because of Tecumseh but seems to be offline these days.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The article is fine. I have reassessed it as B class. The article naming seems okay. I don't know much about the place/period. @Hog Farm: might know more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The name is fine, since the article discusses the stockade itself besides just the battle that took place there. Ideally there'd be some coverage of the period between the battle and whenever the stockade was abandoned in the article, but that's not always covered by sources. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to dig into this article or sources for it much. Hog Farm Talk 07:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I have added additional information to the article to address the period between the battle and the sale of the property. Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 18:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Hawkeye7 and Hog Farm for reviewing, and to GenQuest for updating per comments. I would like to make ALT1 work somehow, but the issue I'm having is that the source says "a mere fifteen sharpshooters" in the body text while acknowledging in the footnote that other sources say as many as twenty – would it be possible to address this detail somehow in the article either with an explanatory endnote and/or finding and adding one of the other sources that says 20? The other issue I had was that I wasn't able to verify that Talitoskee was leading – it feels like maybe one of your sources accidentally got deleted or dropped – so could you please go through that section and fix as well? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Cielquiparle I believe all your objections have been met. Can this get passed now? GenQuest "scribble" 06:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Is anyone looking at this anymore? GenQuest "scribble" 18:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest: I'm having trouble verifying the claim that Talitoskee was leading the raid on Buchanan's Station. Which source says that? Cielquiparle (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle I've removed the offending statement. GenQuest "scribble" 07:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks GenQuest! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @GenQuest: Upon further review, this article still needs more work. For example, the paragraph on John Buchanan arriving in 1780 with his nineteen-year-old wife isn't right (and it doesn't say that in the cited source at the end of paragraph either). I'm now working on the biography for Sally Buchanan which will hopefully help to clear up certain issues, but this is indeed a very challenging story to tell, as there is so much conflicting information (the time period and region make it difficult). I am committed to helping to get Buchanan's Station over the line as a co-author (not as a reviewer or promoter). I would also be open to a joint DYK submission with Sally Buchanan called out in the hook. Regardless, let's get all the facts in both articles fixed first. (I will be focusing on Sally's for the next couple of days, as I fully expect it will evolve significantly as I comb through and cross-reference each claim.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest: I think it's fine to seek a second opinion. I would just ask that the next reviewer please be sure to go through and verify each claim line by line, because there were a lot of problems previously, per the discussion above, with failed verification. I will also go through now and mark exactly where I am still finding conflicts. I am also happy to help fix these issues for you. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: You're looking at the wrong things, especially in an case for DYK. There is conflicting info, but it was cited info; and such details can be worked out on its way to a Good Article status. As long as the hooks are duly cited, and other criteria is met, and the rest isn't complete BS, that is what DYK is for. Quick and easy as in the past. These have been painful enough to put me off ever subjesting myself to this procedure again. I've reviewed at least eight or nine articles myself. I know how it works.
The pertinent criteria are:
The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article;
(Once again, that rule is only for the hook fact, not for every sentence in the article...)
The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.
If you want to go through and add new data, that's fine, but should not hold up the DYK process in the meantime. Thanks for your help, BTW. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest: It is true that DYK standards are probably more rigorous now than in the past, and that American history articles in particular are now subject to increased scrutiny. (See this Talk page which also includes a list of past DYKs that were found to be invalid.) Having now reviewed this article in-depth, I think the main source of the problem was the overreliance on the Nashville Historical Newsletter, which provides a pretty good outline, but the whole story about the Battle of Buchanan Station made a lot more sense to me once I started reading more of the secondary sources cited in that article. Anyway I've now rewritten the entire battle section of the article, so I think we're ready for a fresh review. I will also propose some ALT hooks, as I don't think either ALT0 or ALT1 hold up; even NHN clearly states that the role played by the blunderbuss depends on whom you ask, and it's only one source (NHN) that describes the gunmen as "sharpshooters" which doesn't really make sense if they were using a combination of rifles, muskets, and a blunderbuss. (Side note re: Tecumseh – It's true that Sugden says that young Tecumseh was present during the battle, but this appears to have been a highly controversial claim for quite some time, so if we mention him I think we need to qualify it as such.) In any case, this is a hugely important addition to Wikipedia, and it's just one of those things – certain topics are more challenging and require more time and effort than others.

References

  1. ^ referenced
Proposing new ALT hooks:
Needs a full review in light of significant changes to the article, plus new ALT hooks. Hooks might need workshopping, etc., but article itself is now in much better shape. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take on the re-review here. Skimmed the article content, which looks fine (although I'd recommend avoiding the use of "Indian" and going with "Native American" instead). Hooks look fine from a first glance. QPQ is done. My primary concern at the moment is that HMDB is not a reliable source. A bit more to follow - will perform some basic source-text and copyvio checks this evening. Hog Farm Talk 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. I am the one who swapped in HMDB, mainly to swap this blogspot photo as a source, which seemed far worse. The point is that the historical marker itself was being referenced as a source, and as we all know, they aren't always correct, so I'll search for a better source and replace it. I think I've now mostly removed the few instances of Indian but left Northwest Indian Wars. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest and Hog Farm: I have now removed the entire section referring to the Buchanan Log House, which had nothing to do with Buchanan's Station. The Buchanan Log House, referred to in the historical marker, was built by James Buchanan, son of Archibald and Agnes Buchanan of Clover Bottom – not Major John Buchanan of Buchanan's Station. See the Buchanan Log House website under "Myths & Mysteries". Cielquiparle (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest and Cielquiparle: - I'm having some trouble figuring out how the citations align. "John Buchanan first came to the Washington District in early 1780, settling in the vicinity of Fort Nashboro. Buchanan left Fort Nashboro with a large party in the spring of 1784 [...] . It was situated between Mill Creek and what later became the Buchanan Mill Road" is apparently sourced to "Buchanan’s Station and Cemetery; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022", but I'm not finding any reference to the Washington District, Fort Nashboro, or Buchanan Mill Road on that webpage? I'm not entirely for sure what DYK's stance on source-text integrity is, but after WP:DCGAR I've been trying to spot-check everything I review. Pinging Theleekycauldron as the resident rules expert. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: all of the facts mentioned in the hook need to be sourced at the end of the sentence in their respective places in (at least one if there are multiple) the bolded article – that sourcing needs to be checked and verified to make sure the hook is accurate. By all means, please get any discrepancies cleared up :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I will fix it. I was trying not to rewrite the entire article, so I focused on the Battle section and added "Early hostilities" which already seemed like a lot, but given all the issues, I can fix the rest too. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, please ping me when you're ready for me to pick the review back up. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Ready, thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Checked sources I could access and they came up clean this time. I do not believe this should run as an image hook, as I'm not sold on the CC 4.0 licensing. Per Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart, assuming the photograph was never formally published, since we don't seem to know the photographer, we couldn't use it until 120 years after creation. If we can find an example of publishing before 1977 without a copyright notice, we're good to go, or if it was published before 1963 with a non-renewed copyright notice. There's a few other edge cases, but it's going to take more research than this is probably worth to run the image on the main page, so I'd advise that we don't run this as an image hook. Hog Farm Talk 15:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. Note to promoter: If you choose ALT3, ALT4, or ALT4a, please publish it as a double hook with Sally Buchanan (which I've gone back and bolded). The nomination for that one is here: Template:Did you know nominations/Sally Buchanan. (But I have no problem with simply withdrawing that other nomination, if you choose ALT2.) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
45.7% at earwig is on the high side, but it looks like titles and quotes. Bruxton (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Also ATL4a takes liberties with the adjective heavily which is not defined in our article. I removed it. Bruxton (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Buchanan%27s_Station&oldid=1147900905"