Talk:Choctaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Choctaw is currently a good article nominee. An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article, and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Date: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA nominee|insert date here|page=1|status=|subtopic=Culture and society}}
Choctaw was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 8, 2008


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.


Contents

[edit] Choctaw Bell painting and other visuals

WOW! great job with the visuals.

I am 1/2 Native American and I loved looking at all these pics, etc. They have realistic skin tones, etc. And the photos are good too.

--- Noleeya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.77.180 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possum

In the story about the possum and racoon, the line reads, "There say rd after friendly greetings". That doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what they are trying to imply there. --Royalite

[edit] Various issues

Just wondering if "occupied by the southeastern United States" is NPOV. Danny

Well, it's quite literally true in the sense of occupying space. Whether that's the intended or likely interpretation, and whether other interpretations are to be considered NPOV, is another question. --Brion VIBBER

Funny how everybody who claims descent from any Native American tribe is descended from a "chief" or "leader". Isn't anybody descended from the common run-of-the mill foot soldier? It would be nice to put a name to Meredith's supposed "leader" ancestor. -- Zoe

Heh heh... probably most people are descended from both "leaders" and "common people," somewhere along their family line. --Aaron Walden Image:Tsalagisigline.gif 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, funny that you're writing about Native American tribes, but don't seem to know much about Native Americans. As a descendent of the Mississippi Band, let me inform you a bit. Leadership in the Choctaw tribe, as in most Native American tribes, was not hereditary but based on skill/ability. With each village having it's own leader and there being many villages, most families probably can trace their lineage back to at least one village leader at some point in time. Also, being descended from native leaders is not the opposite of being descended from "common people" considering the lack of hereditary leadership roles. Most tribes didn't have nobles/commoners as in European society. Even tribes with hereditary leadership would not have expressed the divisions in their societies in that manner, nor would native leaders have looked down on the "common people" as European leaders did. Due to the particularities of native culture, there was very little if any difference (in most tribes) between the standard of living for an average warrior and the chief.

According to this source, not at all NPOV, the Rogue's Gallery of an integrationist civil rights group, Meredith's "Choctaw" claim came after Meredith endorsed white racist David Duke for Congress and was trying to change his own background in some sad way. In the same speech he said African Americans should be taught English as a Second Language. Source also states that the Mississippi Band of Choctaws is both unassimilated and intact.

Many black people have Indian ancestry, of course, and Meredith says he does too, but this comes from his genealogical research and he says Oprah Winfrey and O.J. Simpson are also Choctaws. Lots of people down South, and elsewhere, claim Indian ancestry.

The web page of the Mississippi Band of Choctaws does not mention any of these notables.

I hope it was not presumptuous of me to strike the last paragraph; it seems that to cite one member is superfluous. Mr. Meredith perhaps belongs on the List of Native Americans page if anyone wishes to restore him.KJ Sam 08:34 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Wondering if this should mention one of the more interesting characteristics of the choctaw language, the presence of different words to indicate "verifiably true" and "second hand/hearsay"

(I've never done this before, I hope this is how it goes)

Why does it call them one of "the five civilized tribes"? Are they implying that all of the other American Indian nations are uncivilized, or is it a name that has a story behind it? Did this person mean the Choctaw are one of a main five tribes who were influenced by and/or accepted relations with the invading peoples?

I didn't want to remove it and seem too easily offended, but it sounds wrong to me. Besides, who's deciding what's "civilized" anyway? More than likely a nation who's so "civilized" that they take over (and obliterate) other "heathen" nations?

I, I am not an it, used the "Five Civilzed Tribes" name because history names the tribes so. I didn't come up with the term. Many tribes intergrated European technology, and many did sucessfully, especially the Cherokee. If it weren't for the State of Georgia's greedy appetite for Cherokee country in the 1800s, there may have well been many advanced Indian Nations on par with Japan, Mexico, Russia, and the U.S.


Photo of gravestone shows the named spelled like this : Push-Ma-Ha-Ta - Ted Wilkes 12:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocktaw

The article name "Chocktaw" needs to be redirected here. When I entered the actual URL in the Address Bar of the browser, I got a message saying it was not found. Mattderojas 16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prank

The Choctaw language is spoken of as being related to piglatin. This needs to be fixed.

[edit] References

We need to get some references for the quotes. I don't know where to begin on some of them (like the Ferguson ones).--Cúchullain t/c 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again on the tracing of lineages to chiefs

I must point out that since, first, chiefdoms were an elected position as far back as even oral histories recount, and second, the size of the tribes are quite small, it is statistically likely that any randomly chosen person of Choctaw lineage will be able to trace their heritage to one or more chiefs. This is the same effect as that in Europe, where after twelve centuries the probability of being descended from Charlemagne is higher than 50%; however, the much lower population of the Choctaw enhances the effect.

Consider the Choctaw population of 1820, just prior to the Removal. There were three chiefs and a population of about 20,000. It is recorded that Pushmataha had five children; let's take that as an average. Therefore your chances of being directly descended from an 1820 chief were about one in 800, never mind earlier chiefs. With each following generation, this probability rises. 3 chiefs x 5 kids x 2 people/couple = 30 people in the first generation whose children could claim 1820 chief lineage. In the second generation, therefore, upwards of a hundred people (statistically speaking) could claim 1820 chief lineage. That rises to several hundred in the next generation, and several thousand in the sixth -- maybe 1 in 20 of the whole of the Choctaw.

And that's just for the three chiefs of 1820. Chiefs changed about once every generation in those days, so every generation is another shot at having a chiefly lineage... and the further back you go, the better the odds get.

So no, being able to trace chiefly lineage is not much of a problem... especially when you take into account the bias that a chiefly lineage is more likely to be remembered in oral tradition than a foot-soldier's. Alba 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanups

19-June-2007: Many Wikipedia articles go unchanged for months; however, other articles (such as "Choctaw") require periodic cleanup to adjust the overall effects of numerous revisions during each period. A common temptation is to substitute "Native Americans" everywhere, but note that the term "Choctaw Indians" is used by the Choctaw people themselves in many publications. The most difficult problems are hidden vandalism, that changes parts of paragraphs or substitutes names in unfamous roles.

  • Spotting problems: To help spot problems, under the "History" tab, use the button "Compare selected versions" to show differences between the top and bottom revision of each page of 50 revisions to check for suspicious edits. Hopefully, cleanups can be done within each 50 edits so that just one top-bottom comparison is needed to find all pertinent changes. However, beware that some botched or axed text can go undetected for months (only found by checking the previous 150 or more revisions).
  • Tag remainder: It is not essential to cleanup the entire article in one day: move the tag "{{cleanup}}" lower in the article, renamed such as tag "{{cleanup-remainder|June 2007}" to indicate progress and enable others to help with the cleanup. -Wikid77 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup June 2007

19-June-2007: During the recent cleanup, I found the following issues (as corrected), comparing with the 14Mar07 revision:

  • under section "Origins" restored intro text from 23Feb07;
  • restored "Choctaw scouts" text from 27Feb07;
  • re-linked various years: 1699, 1876, 1831, 1838;
  • restored code-talker Joseph Oklahombi +source (had become "Josh...");
  • fixed grammar: "will recognized" and "drew" was "draw";
  • fixed new reference: William Bartram, "Travels Through...Country of the Chactaws...", 1791, UNC webpage: UNC-WBartram.
  • added several source footnotes to expanded citation coverage;
  • removed unneeded blank line that scrambled diff-comparison.

After making changes, I moved the tag "{{cleanup}}" lower in the article to become the less-obtrusive tag "{{cleanup-remainder|June 2007}}" as showing some progress. -Wikid77 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture?

Ball players by George Catlin
Ball players by George Catlin

Is this picture with Choctaw? If you are sure, write Category:Choctaw on the picture descripton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.42.148 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The ballplayer on the far left is a Choctaw (Tul-lock-chísh-ko, He Who Drinks the Juice from the Stone) and the far right is a Sioux (Ah-nó-je-nahge, He Who Stands on Both Sides). I'm not sure what tribe the middle player is from, but I'll look it up.Rob (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The middle player is We-chush-ta-do-ta (The Red Man) of the Sioux. George Catlin painted these players (source: Southeastern Indians: Life Portraits, A Catalogue of Pictures 1564-1860). Rob (talk)

[edit] Major Revision

During the past few days I have added major sections, corrected errors and inserted images. I will continue to "stream line" the article in a chronological fashion ... please contact me for any issue that needs to be addressed. Rob (talk)

[edit] Created Articles

I created sub-articles to condense the main Choctaw article. The size was 75 kilobytes, but now it is down to 59 kb. I moved article specific info to Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma which both were just re-directs to the Choctaw article. I also created a Jena Band of Choctaw Indians and moved info to the MOWA Choctaw article as well.Rob (talk)

[edit] First Major Non-European Ethnic Group to Become U.S. Citizens

Can anyone challenge this statement: Under article XIV of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi Choctaws would become the first major non-european ethnic group to become U.S. citizens in 1830-31. Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • In 1857, The Dred Scott Decision ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States. It wasn't until 1868 that the 14th amendment granted full U.S. citizenship to African-Americans. Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In 1848, the Mexican-American War, followed by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, extended U.S. control over a wide range of territory once held by Mexico, including the present day states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California. The vast majority of Hispanic populations chose to stay and become full US citizens. Rob (talk)
  • In 1882, The Chinese Exclusion Act, passed by Congress, was a U.S. law to prevent immigration and naturalization of the Chinese. Legally all ethnic Chinese born in the United States are American citizens as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision. (from wiki article) Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On August 31, 1830 Article 4 of the Treaty with the Chickasaw stated: "The reservations secured under this article, shall be granted in fee simple, to those who choose to remain, and become subject to the laws of the whites." The Chickasaw treaty of 1830 however was NEVER RATIFIED by the U.S. Senate. Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Prior to the passage of the act (Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) of June 2, 1924, about two-thirds of the Indians of the United States were already citizens. There were a number of different provisions of law by which or under which Indians became citizens previous to June 2, 1924. Some of the most important ways of their attaining citizenship were as follows:
1. Treaty Provision.—In some of the treaties or agreements with certain tribes of Indians provision was made whereby Indians desiring to become citizens might become such by complying with certain prescribed formalities somewhat similar to those required of aliens ... The above is not intended to be a complete list of the acts of Congress involving the citizenship of Indians, as there are a number of other laws including those affecting particular tribes, but it is believed the foregoing list or statement is sufficient to give a general idea of the main principles or rules that were involved in the determination of whether or not a particular Indian was a citizen prior to the act of June 2, 1924, supra. Source: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol4/html_files/v4p1165.html Rob (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA reviewer thoughts

Well done overall. I'm failing this for now because I think there are too many issues to fix in one week, the period of time recommended for a hold. The main problems were that the referencing was inadequate in some places and there was a little bit of POV wording, which I've discussed below. The suggestions below look like an awful lot, but most of it is very minor stuff that won't be difficult to fix, except for the missing references. Most of it wouldn't stop you from getting GA status, but I noticed it so I figured I'd mention it, since it's stuff you'll have to fix before FAC, which I have no doubt this article can make it through with some work.

A lot of the stuff below I'm not sure about, the things that are phrased as questions may not need fixing in the article, I may just need explanation. Please bear with me on this review, it's my first.

Most of my comments deal with style and prose issues. I'm not familiar with the subject, so I can't really address accuracy except as a layperson. You may want to approach someone from one of the relevant WikiProjects for another review focusing on content, and/or submit it for a peer review before going for FAC.

[edit] Lead

  • The lead has a bunch of sentences that start with "The Choctaw". Can some be reworded to mix it up a little, so it sounds less repetitive?
  • The second to last sentence in the second paragraph of the lead doesn't really fit there. Maybe incorporate it somewhere in the first paragraph?

[edit] History

  • Who is Horatio Cushman? How about "Noted historian Horatio Cushman..." or anthropologist, or whatever? Same with Antoine du Pratz and other redlinked or unlinked names. In general, when you first use a name, I recommend that you give a couple words explaining who they were.
  • Should "the gulf shores" be capitalized? Not sure.
  • "The Narváez expedition created a sensation..." Where? In Spain? If so, you might want to switch the second to last and last sentences in this paragraph and alter the wording accordingly.
  • "Soto, convinced of the riches, wanted Cabeza de Vaca to go with him but later declined his offer..." this sentence is a little awkward. Why is riches italicized? And you have a 'him' and a 'his' referring to two different people.
  • is it Soto, De Soto, or de Soto? If it's the latter, I don't know how you'd do that with that at the beginning of a sentence. Hernando De Soto uses 'De Soto' at the beginning of a sentence, but that article's not entirely consistent with the capitalization of the name. Can you check one of your references to see how they do it? The article uses all three, it should be consistent.
  • The wording "aggressively defend" is a little odd, what with the connotation of aggression. Though the meaning is still clear. Maybe just use a similar word to aggressively?
  • Numerical ranges, such as date ranges and page ranges in your references, should have an en dash, not a hyphen.
  • For the sentence beginning, "The Battle of Maubila was a turning point for the De Soto venture..." I assume this battle is the one mentioned in the quote right before it? If it is, you could say something like, "This battle, known as the Battle of Maubila..." If not, could you clarify when & where this battle took place? Are Mabila and Maubila alternate spellings?
  • "The first direct contact recorded between the Choctaw and a European was with Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville in 1699..." I'm confused by this, in the previous paragraph the quote says "Hernando De Soto... made contact with the Choctaws in the year 1540." Were the previous sections discussing contact with the antecedents of the Choctaw? If so, maybe you could say something like, *"The first direct contact recorded between a European and the Choctaw (as opposed to a European and the antecedents of the Choctaw)..." only that wording's kind of clunky.

[edit] United States Relations

  • I don't understand the need for this quote: "Ferguson writes, 'nine treaties were signed during a forty-four-year period, from 1786 to 1830. I shall stress the amounts of Choctaw land involved in these treaties, even though they included agreements relating to other matters, because land was the Indians' most valuable resource.'" The first part is a repetition of the previous sentence, and the second is about his own writing. You already quote him a lot, and the article is quite long. Maybe you could briefly paraphrase whatever you need from this quote. There's a lot of quoting in the article, I'd take any opportunity to pare it down.
  • "...warned him that he would fight against those..." another confusing he/him use of
  • "Some sources say Pushmataha was among them, while others disagree" - weasel wording. Just cite sources that argue both sides.
  • "They met with tribal representatives including at Doak's Stand on the Natchez Trace. They met with chiefs, mingos, and headsmen like Colonel Silas Dinsmore and Chief Pushmataha." Repetitive, should be condensed into one sentence.
  • "Jackson finally resorted to threats to pressure the Choctaw to sign a treaty" - This sentence sounds awkward to me, and may have a bit of a POV tint.

[edit] Delegation to Washington City (1824)

  • is the wording "half breed Indians" appropriate?
  • "Apuckshunubbee died in Maysville, Kentucky; and Pushmataha died in Washington. Apuckshunubbee was reported to have died from a broken neck caused by a fall from a hotel balcony." Another two sentences that should be combined into one. There are a few cases with this kind of repetitive wording, e.g. "Washington did this. Washington did that." Maybe you should look over the article to make sure I haven't missed any.

[edit] Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (1830)

  • "A provision in the treaty made removal more palatable. Choctaws who eventually choose to remain in their ancient home country signed up for a collective 500 square miles." This was awkward, but I wasn't quite sure how to fix it.
  • I think you're supposed to avoid wikilinks in quotes. Can you integrate these into another part of the section?
  • "More importantly, the treaty signed away the remaining traditional homelands and open it up for official settlement." Awkward.

[edit] Removal era

  • The fact that "The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 25, 1831" is repeated.
  • "For the next ten years they were objects of increasing legal conflict, harassment, and intimidation." Do you need this sentence? How about just stating what happened, as the next sentence does? That way you avoid sounding like you're offerring commentary. Same with "Racism was rampant." I think the quotes are very powerful in getting the points across.

[edit] Great Irish Famine aid (1847)

  • "...It was an amazing gesture. By today's standards, it might be a million dollars.' according to Judy Allen..." I don't think you're supposed to have a period here, even if it has one in the original quotation. I think it should be a comma, correct me if I'm wrong.
  • "The Choctaws who were expecting support from the Confederates got little." - this would have a different meaning from "The Choctaws, who were expecting support from the Confederates, got little." Which is the article saying? A subset of Choctaws who were expecting support? Or all of the Chocktaws, who were expecting support, got little?

[edit] Civil war

  • "Peter Pitchlynn, who was in Washington City in 1861 when the war started, immediately returned home, hoping to escape the expected strife. He had been there to address national affairs of the Choctaws." I already made some changes to these sentences, but they could be tightened up further if they were combined. But they can only be combined if the cited ref says everything in both sentences.
  • I'm not sure, but I think abbreviations like Brig. Gen. should be avoided.
  • "Their most significant event was not conducted on a battlefield but as a rescue mission. After a disastrous train wreck, referred to as the Chunky Creek Train Wreck of 1863, near Hickory, Mississippi, the Choctaw Battalion, which had been organized days earlier, led rescue and recovery efforts." - Who says that event was the most significant? By what standard is the train wreck deemed disastrous? I think it would be better to just give facts rather than commenting in this way. Also, the second sentence is a bit long.
  • "...one impulse-to Vicksburg! to victory..." This should be an em dash, I think.
  • "Maj. S. G. Spann, Commander of Dabney H. Maury Camp of Meridian, Mississippi," It's good that the article introduces him, but it should do it at the first mention of his name.

[edit] Post war era

  • "On June 21, 1964 three civil rights workers disappeared" - Easter egg links should be avoided if possible. Is there a way to rephrase this that makes the name of the linked article more clear? (I changed it a tiny bit, but it's still not clear, and the same link comes shortly after in the same section, which should be avoided).
  • I don't know if wording like "dire straits" and "plight" are quite neutral. Could you instead just describe what it was they witnessed, or what they said? (The quote by Will Campbell does that well, I think)
  • "The Choctaws, who for 150 years had been neither white nor black, were left where they had always been." This wording doesn't sound neutral to me.
  • " Donna Ladd wrote a Choctaw, now in her 40s, remembers 'as a little girl..." I found this confusing. Maybe "Donna Ladd wrote that a Choctaw..."?

[edit] Recent history

  • "The 1970s was a crucial and defining decade for the Choctaw." This sounds like it's offerring commentary. At the very least, it should be sourced, but really the article should just say what happened rather than making general comments like this.
  • Similarly, instead of saying "This law revolutionized the relationship between Indian Nations and the federal government," just say what it did and what effects it had, and let the reader decide. There's other wording like this in this section too.

[edit] Other sections

  • Culture is pretty sparse, is that really all there is to say on the topic? Is there a main article to link to? What about food, religion, family structure, etc?
  • Under Influential leaders, it would be great to get birth and death dates (or approximate dates, if these aren't known), but if this is way too much work, it's not a big deal.

[edit] Images

  • The images are great, they really enhance the article.
  • Image:ChoctawFlag.png is marked as pd-self, which I don't think is valid, because I doubt the uploader really owns the copyright. I don't think making a reproduction of the flag means that you have the copyright of that reproduction. You may have to do some kind of fair use thing like we do with logos, but you'll have to check with someone more clueful about image stuff.
  • I believe only captions with full sentences need periods, maybe double check the WP:MOS.

[edit] Referencing

  • Cite needed tags: In 1959, the Choctaw Termination Act was passed.[citation needed] Unless repealed by the federal government, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma would effectively be terminated as a sovereign nation as of August 25, 1970.[citation needed] I also added a couple myself. Not trying to be a jerk, just thought it would be easier than bringing it up here. All quotations need citations, as do all statistics (e.g. 500 warriors). Also, for some statements, e.g. the 'reading between the lines' one, it wasn't clear whether this has been written somewhere or whether the article's author is inferring it, so I marked them as cn. If it's the latter, these statements should be removed. The inadequate referencing is really the only serious deal breaker for this GA.
  • You might want to fix the dates in the refs so they read February 28, 2008, not Feb 28, 2008. Some of the refs have the date format as "Retrieved on 2007-09-20", I recommend choosing one and having it consistent.
  • Some of the refs need to be fleshed out, e.g. with author, publisher, publication date, and access date for web refs, and books preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN.

[edit] General

  • Dependent clauses should be separated by commas, I may have gotten all of these, but maybe check.
  • There was a fair amount of redundant wording throughout the article, you can look at my edits for an idea of what I'm talking about (e.g. "in the year of 1828", year of is unnecessary). I'd recommend a copyediting with a view toward removing redundancy. You can check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy for help.
  • There should be a non breaking space between numbers and units (e.g. 8,000 km, not 8,000 km)
  • Problems with flow: Sometimes sections seem to move kind of abruptly from one to the next. How about adding a transitional sentence onto the end of the section to prepare the reader for the next paragraph? The last sentence in Impact of Old World diseases is good; even though there's a gap in time, it prepares the reader for the next section.
  • I'm probably not the best to judge, but I don't know if all the detail is necessary, e.g. on the explorers under Post Columbian era. That was only tangentially related to the antecedents of the Choctaw, not the Choctaw themselves. Maybe this could be combined into one section and pared down. Paring would be good, since the article is quite long.
  • Single sentences or very brief paragraphs normally shouldn't stand alone.

Most of the stuff I've mentioned here isn't that vital to GA status, but together some of the awkward wording creates a problem for well-writtenness (how's that for a well written sentence? XD). The main problems that I'm failing it on are the lack of referencing and the occasional use of wording that sounds POV, which I've discussed. In addition, there are some problems with flow and excessive or inadequate detail, which I've also mentioned.

I'm sorry to be so picky with the article, it really is quite good. It was obviously written by someone who knows a ton about the subject and worked very hard on it. I think you'll be able to address these things without much problem, definitely let me know if you need more clarification or help. delldot talk 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review ... I will address these points, but it will take some time as you have pointed out. This is the first time I have heavily contributed to a Wikipedia article ... This explains my lack of nuance and technical understandings for getting a article up to GA status. Thanks again. Rob (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, you've done fine so far, take your time. Drop me a note if you need anything. delldot talk 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-submitted article

I have resubmitted, after working on the recommendation from Delldot, this article for GA status. Rob (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Choctaw/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I will review this article. Please be patient; it'll take a while. I will probably report back in segments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the early sections.

  • Lead
    • First sentence has two facts: the Choctaw originate from the south-eastern states, and they are of the Muskogean linguistic group. Punctuation is necessary to separate these.
    • "..may have derived from.." would be better: "may derive from"
    • "…meaning wineglass or flat" reads very oddly, when the terms are so unrelated. I suggest a comma after "chato", then: "which can mean 'wineglass', or alternatively, 'flat'"
    • "it is widely believed…" by whom? Citation required
    • "are believed to have encountered.." Ditto
    • First sentence of para 2 is clumsily worded and the grammar is wrong. Also, independence was from the British Crown, not the British Empire – "empire" is a collective term for the colonies. I’d simplify: "During the American Revolution most Choctaws supported the thirteen colonies' bid for independence from the British Crown". Unless this is cited later in the article this statement should be cited here.
    • Next sentence is incomprehensible. What were these treaties, when were they signed, what was their purpose? How come we now have Choctaw "exiles"? Also, even with the link I think Jackson should be referred to as "President Andrew Jackson".
    • The last sentence of the lead is confusing, and probably violates WP:Lead: "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them".
  • New World antiquity
    • Paleo-indians appears with and without hyphen. Which is correct?
    • The first "the" in the opening sentence is superfluous. Also, "in what today is referred to as the South" is Americo-centric. Suggest: "in what today, in the US, is referred to as the South".
    • What is a "fairly generalized" hunter-gatherer?
    • This sentence needs a comma after "animals", and the word "soon”" is superfluous
    • In the following sentence, need to clarify that "they" refers to the Choctaw, not the mammoths
    • "Cushman writes:" requires a colon rather than a comma, same where you have "Cushman continues:" However, this quote from Cushman is pretty dreadful in terms of sentence construction and punctuation. I can't work out who/what the various theys and thems are. I'd chuck the quote – it lowers the tone of the article.
  • Origin tradition
    • This section needs to be made into a more coherent entity.
    • I can't understand why the sentence beginning “Despite…” – is a “despite” sentence.
    • Give dates of Romans and Catlin quotes, and integrate them into the narrative
    • Nanih Waiya needs explaining, as well as the link (the link should be to provide more information, but the term should be defined or explained)
    • Moundville and Plaquemine should be followed by commas, not semi-colons.

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another portion:-

  • Post Columbian
    • As with Nanih Waiya, "Mississippian culture" needs a brief explanation in the text, rather than just the link. "The Mississippian mound-building culture" might do.
    • The word "that" is superfluous in the second sentence
    • General readers may wonder what "the gulf shores”" means. Which gulf?
    • "The political centres of the Mississippians" needs explaining
  • Panfilo de Narvaez: Is this subsection necessary? Insofar as this information relates to the Choctaw, it could be reduced to a single linking sentence.
  • Hernando De Soto
    • Who was he? He should be properly introduced.
    • "were known by the antecedents" might be better as "became known to the…"
  • Impact of Old World Diseases: Basically, this subsection says that there's no evidence for something. So why mention it at all? I can't see a need for it. Also, the last two sentences are not related to the subsection, and the last is uncited opinion.
  • Le Moyne d’Iberville
    • Re first direct contact with a European…what about the Choctaws who feasted and danced with De Soto?
    • Link Louisiana
    • "Illegal fur trading may have led to…" Sentence needs a citation
    • The scenario that follows must also be cited.
  • United States relations
    • Henry Knox – who he?
    • Since he is writing about Washington rather than Jackson, I suggest that Remini becomes merely "noted historian.
    • Why are civilize and presents italicized?
    • "bided with" (meaning "went along with") sounds very archaic in BritEng – perhaps it's a popular term in AmEng? Otherwise, try "accepted"
    • Comma needed after "during the war".
    • Introduce Tecumseh
  • Hopewell
    • Taboca – who is he?
    • friendship is one word. If it’s two words in the quote, write (sic) after.
  • War of 1812
    • Tecumseh came where?
    • Introduce Pushmataha (I know he’s in the lead image, but that was a long time ago, and I’ve forgotten)
    • "Kantachi, or Econochaca" suggests uncertainty as to place. "Kantachi, otherwise called…" would clarify
    • "Many of them departed…." Who departed, what did they depart from?

More later

Third instalment: This will take us to about half way. I will pause until I get some response from the editors.

  • Doak's stand
    • Comma required after United States in first line
    • surrender – to whom?
    • what/who are mingos?
    • "headsmen like…" is too casual, informal
    • Sharp Knife should be in quotes
    • Comma required after "Jackson resorted to threats"
    • Introduce Apuckshunubbee
    • "blacked mailed"? Presumably blackmailed.
    • Last sentence of section should not anticipate later sections
  • Delegation to Washington City
    • Need to explain the term "encroaching settlement"
    • principal, not principle
    • Comma required after "settlement"
    • Suggest reword: "…and to seek either expulsion of the settlers or financial compensation".
    • Why is the proposed route to Washington either interesting or noteworthy?
    • Suggest "which ceded even more Choctaw territory to the United States"
    • The last para needs many more citations – everything from "Other historians say he fell over a cliff" to end of para must be cited.
  • Treaty of Dancing Rabbit
    • Who is General Leflore (or LeFlore)?
    • You must not introduce phrases like "where the rabbits go to dance" in an encyclopaedia article.
    • You need to sort out grammar and tenses in the sentence which begins "The treaty signed away…"
    • Italicized emphasis is unnecessary on "first", in a neutral encyclopaedia article
  • Removal era
    • Sort out the Joseph Cobb quote. Which parts of the sentence did he actually say? What do you think is the meaning of the odd phrase: "the red man’s superior in every way"?

OK, over to you for a reaction. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No reaction yet from you. This is the remaider of my review. Please leave a note on my talkpage when you are ready to engage.

  • American Civil War
    • Introduce Peter Pytchlynn
    • Confederate battalions were (not "where") formed
    • Who is "Garrison"?
    • Semi-colon needed after "response"
    • "McCurtain…was elected…" should be "had been elected", since this is a step back to before the war. This paragraph is detached form the rest of the section, and seems to serve no purpose.
    • "The Mobile Adv. & Reg. would advertise…" – should be "…& Reg. advertised…”"
    • Last para, for clarity, should begin: "…Spann organized the first Mississippi battalion of Choctaws…"
    • The long dramatic quote from Spann is largely unnecessary. Too mchconcentration here on a single incident
  • Choctaw freedmen
    • "exposed to Africans"? Meaning what?
    • I don't understand the purpose of the second sentence.
    • Introduce Moshultubbee
  • Territory transition: After the very detailed history you have previously provided, this very brief section is all there is, covering a 50-year period up to 1914. This seems strange; did nothing else of note happen in that time?
  • Code talkers
    • "a group", not "A group"
    • Unless you are quoting from somewhere, the wording: “The…Act…will recognise…”etc. should be changed to something more neutral.
  • World War II
    • "they did not have the amenities that other citizens had". What were they lacking?
    • A Second Lieutenant and Sgt? How come? Also, comma required after “Infantry Division”
  • Post-war era: The prose in this section is muddled. First sentence is ungrammatical.
    • Introduce Philip Martin in text, not just in caption
    • Who is Will Campbell, and where does his quote end?
    • Phrases like "were left where they had always been" are too vague and informal for an encyclopedia article.
  • Recent history: This section is unbalanced by far too much information about the casino project.

I’ll look at the minor sections at the end later. At this point, I have to say that the article is a long way from being of good article standard. Many of the points raised above are minor, and can be fixed quickly, but some are indicative of more serious faults. The main problems are: your repeated failure to introduce people other than by links; serious in-line citation omissions, as noted; generally poor prose which is often difficult to read; over-detailing in some areas and scant detail in others. Please leave me a note when you have had the chance to deal with the specific matters I have raised.

Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)