Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Concho/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2021 [1].

Fort Concho edit

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Fort Concho, is a former US Army installation located almost literally in the middle of Texas. It is in fact the best-preserved 19th century US Army installation anywhere in the country, let alone Texas. For that reason, it has the distinction of being a National Historic Landmark. Just as with my previous FA, this is the labor of two years, which I hope to just need one FAC for this time. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Concho/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was gonna comment this at the PR, but you closed. There's pretty heavy reliance on Matthews and the NPS. Have you drawn on sources like [2], ISBN 9781574414875 and ISBN 9780585464138, or a reason to avoid them? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be totally honest, I had no idea these existed. I've since looked at each, and confirmed their credibility. Though I am loathe to use Haley, having been exposed to plenty of antiquated, racist prose I've read thus far in the linked work of his. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read more of Mr. Haley's work, and find his racism and conservativism unacceptable. The other works shared by Eddie have been handy, however. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note by nominator: I have looked at all three of the books Eddie891 linked, and worked two of them, as well as spent some time on JSTOR. I believe I am now (more) ready to proceed with FAC, and will make enquiries. Especially from Hog Farm, over in the Trans-Mississippi in almost the same time period. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image licensing looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this note, I have added this photo. It is PD by virtue of its being a work of the US government. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Looked at this during the peer review, so I may not find a whole bunch of new stuff. Will try to review this here over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and thank you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning that there are plans, approval, and funding to reconstruct some more buildings?
    • It is, but no progress has been made on that work. It was in the article when it passed GAN, but I took it out because without that progress, the reader, like Eddie when he reviewed the article, would ask, "Well, what's happened since then?". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source linked above does have an update as of mid-December 2020, so I guess you could give the most recent update. But there seems to have very little progress on that front, so it's not significant to leave it out. Will read through the article again tomorrow; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh shoot. Alright, I've added that source, along with some content I cut out from the GAN. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889, and in that time the fort housed elements of fifteen US Cavalry and Infantry regiments" - Not finding the sum of 15 in the body
  • "and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry" - Phrasing of the first part of the implies that it was the principal base of the 10th Cavalry. Not explicitly stated in the article body, although the presence of 5 companies there in 1880 would imply that it was, as that would have been a big chunk of the unit.
    • Mackenzie did move the unit's headquarters to the fort in 1871, so I've revised the sentence to say "headquarters". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At its greatest extent in the 1870s, Fort Concho consisted of forty buildings on 40 acres (16 ha) of land leased by the US Army. - 40 acres is stated to be the current size of the fort, but I'm not seeing where it's directly specified to have been the greatest extent.
    • I couldn't figure out how to phrase that; trimmed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the federal government abandoned its Texas forts to the Confederate States of America" - Is abandoned or surrendered a better word? Because David E. Twiggs did technically surrender the forts, but it was not a standard surrender, as the US Army kinda just got to leave. So I can see that going either way.
    • Changed "abandoned" to "ceded" for a middle of the road approach. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Confederate Texas was unable to secure its territories and was defeated by the Comanche and Kiowa at the First Battle of Adobe Walls," - Wasn't First Adobe Walls a USA cavalry regiment under Kit Carson? Not aware of CSA participation there
    • First Adobe Walls was indeed a Union affair; I've axed mentions of both battles and combined . –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the first seven months of Fort Concho, its garrison – numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas – occupied by its plodding construction" - I think you're missing a word in here
  • " Captain Napoleon B. McLaughlen set out with two companies of the 4th Cavalry and one of the 11th Infantry and confirmed Wilson's report" - Was the 11th Infantry company from Fort Richardson or Concho?
    • I honestly do not know. My source does not say, and Google searching turned up nothing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stationed at Forts Concho, Stockton, Fort Davis, Quitman, and Clark, the 4th Cavalry was tasked with patrolling the frontier, escorting wagons and settlers, and mounting expeditions" - You surely mean the 10th Cavalry, right?
    • Now, that is an embarrassing slip up. Corrected now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fort's chaplains were some of the first preachers and educators in the town and its medical staff, chiefly surgeon William Notson also treated civilians" - Should there be a comma after Notson, as "chiefly surgeon William Notson" seems to be an appositive?
  • "Additional buildings, were built in around the fort,[62] including what is now Fort Concho Elementary," - Drop the first comma I think and should it be "in and around the fort"?
  • "National Register of Historic Places October 15, 1966" - missing an "on" I think
  • Exact date of 1-1-1986 for TSAL listing in the infobox isn't fully cited, as only 1986 is cited in the body
  • the Forts of Texas see also link is not needed per MOS:SEEALSO, as it is linked in the article body

Looks like I caught some stuff this time I missed in the PR. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have also added and moved things around since the PR. Good catches, I've addressed them all. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support of WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 23:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Epicgenius edit

Here are some of my initial comments.

Lead:

  • It was established in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail. The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889 - Is there any way to combine these, as I assume the Army operated the fort immediately from its establishment. How about something like "The US Army established the fort in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail, and operated it until June 1889"?
  • Initially, Fort Concho was the principal base of the 4th Cavalry and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry. - Did the fort serve as base of the 4th and 10th cavalries at the same time, or was it the 4th and then the 10th?
  • The fort was abandoned in June 1889 and passed into civilian hands. - In the first paragraph, it is already mentioned that the fort operated till June 1889.
    • Clipped from the first paragraph. I've also combined the first sentences of the second paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • on July 4, 1961 - add a comma after "1961"
  • 40 acres (16 ha) grounds - This should be "40-acre (16 ha) grounds". You can add |adj=on to {{convert}}.
    • Ahah, that's what I was I reaching for there. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of August 2019, the fort was visited annually by around 55,000 people. - I would use active voice, e.g. "As of August 2019, around 55,000 people visited the fort annually".

Operation by the US military:

  • But in 1849, American colonists began crossing West Texas in large numbers to reach California, where gold had been discovered - It seems weird to begin a sentence with "But". Usually you can drop it or replace it with "However".
  • and among those avenues was the Butterfield Overland Mail route, established in 1858 to bring mail from St. Louis to San Francisco - I would move this to the next sentence, which is On its way through Texas, the route passed through Fort Chadbourne...
  • But after the end of the war in 1865 - Same as above.
  • But later that year, the US Army was ordered to reoccupy its pre-war Texas billets early in 1867 - Same, but "but later that year" may be a little redundant, and you can just say "shortly afterward".
  • identified the junction of the Concho Rivers as an ideal site because of the abundance of water - I also think this is better fit for the next sentence (The site was also desirable for its proximity to the routes it was to guard and for the abundance of nearby grazing land).

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Construction:

  • Construction of Fort Concho was assigned on December 10, 1867, to Captain David W. Porter, assistant quartermaster of the Department of Texas. - I would suggest either recasting this in active voice, or rephrasing this so that the date is first (e.g. "On December 10, 1867, the construction contract was assigned to Captain David W. Porter...")
  • Progress was slow - How slow? Is it like "100-year construction project" slow, or just your standard delays?
    • I've moved things around in the paragraph for more immediate clarification. Can't recall, or fathom, why this order didn't occur to me before. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March - In March 1868, I presume.
  • They were followed over the next year by two more officer's residences, another barracks were built, and a permanent guardhouse and stables - You can probably drop "was built".
  • a quartermaster's corral, and a wagon shed - The comma's also unnecessary here, as this is not an ordered list.
  • Construction was again slowed in February 1872 with the discharging of most of the civilian workforce following budget cuts to the US War Department - this phrasing is awkward. I would use active voice for at least part of the sentence, e.g. "Construction was again slowed in February 1872 when most of the civilian workforce was discharged following budget cuts to the US War Department"
  • By 1879, the fort was garrisoned by eight companies of regular soldiers billeted in entirely limestone-built structures,[26] of which there were 39 by April 1889 - 39 limestone structures or 39 soldiers per company? Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base of the 4th Cavalry

  • numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas - This is awkward; I would place the "1869 reports of the War Department" at either the beginning or the end of this fragment.
  • Comanche and Kiowa raids increased in number over the rest of 1871 - Became more frequent?
  • by August,[39] Sheridan, now commanding the Military Division of the Missouri,[11] ordered five expeditionary forces of more than 3,000 soldiers each into the South Plains. - I suggest this can be a new sentence.
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base of the 10th Cavalry

  • In July 1877, Captain Nicholas M. Nolan led an ill-fated expedition out of Fort Concho that achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A - The detail that the expedition "achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A" is very interesting. In light of that, though, "ill-fated" may be redundant, but that's just my opinion.
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠
  • The disarmament was delayed until April 16 because of rains, and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arms. - As another editor once said, What helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. (E.g. is "and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arm" a complete sentence? It's not, so either the comma should be removed, or you should reword the fragment after the comma to "and it resulted in failure".)
  • The 10th Cavalry transferred permanently to Fort Davis, farther to the west, in July 1882. - do we know why?

Post-Texas Indian Wars and deactivation

  • By the mid-1880s, the ranches that now enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing reduced the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, to patrolling roads. - This sentence is also awkward, largely because "enclosed" is used as a passive verb instead of an active verb. Additionally, there are two thoughts here: the ranches were enclosed with barbed-wire fencing, and the soldiers were forced to patrol roads. I suggest something like this: "By the mid-1880s, ranches enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing; the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, were reduced to patrolling roads."
    • I've dropped your suggested sentences into the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early 1888, the 8th Cavalry gathered at Fort Concho from around Texas, and then left in June for Fort Meade, South Dakota. - Same issue as above, regarding the comma after "Texas".
    • Removed comma. –07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On June 20, 1889, the men of K Company lowered the flag over the fort for the final time, and left the next morning - Same issue with the comma after "time". Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with San Angelo, Texas

  • By 1875, San Angelo was a collection of saloons and brothels and had a reputation befitting that - the second part of the sentence seems redundant. How about something like "By 1875, San Angelo was known for its collection of saloons and brothels"?
  • This was the state of affairs - Same here, I'd just say "This continued..."
  • Combined with the preceding sentence. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • traders and settlers, and allowed - This comma is unnecessary.

Preservation

  • As early as 1905, however, influential locals tried to conserve the fort. J. L. Millspaugh, one of the sutlers contracted to supply the fort, suggested without success that the city buy the fort - It may just be me but I think "fort" is repeated quite excessively here.
  • A decade later in 1924 - How about just "Eleven years later"?
  • When the museum began expanding into other rooms of the courthouse, Carson moved the museum into Fort Concho's headquarters building on August 8, 1930 - The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the museum was relocated while it was expanding. I would therefore replace "When" with "After" or something similar.
  • The Great Depression and World War II imposed financial difficulties on the museum - I would say directly that the museum didn't have too much funding.
  • The museum was made a department of the city of San Angelo in 1955, but there was only property purchased in that decade - How many properties? Or did the museum just buy property and do nothing else?
  • The second half of the 20th century was to see a change in the Fort Concho Museum's fortunes. - In my view, "change in fortunes" is a little eupheimstic.
  • On July 4, 1961, Fort Concho was named a National Historic Landmark District,[71] and placed on the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966,[72] by the National Park Service (NPS). - I would standardize the date placement in this sentence structure. E.g. "On July 4, 1961, Fort Concho was named a National Historic Landmark District, and on October 15, 1966, the National Park Service (NPS) placed it on the National Register of Historic Places."
  • and advised both times the expansion of the museum staff. - I would also rephrase this. Either drop "and" (i.e. "...both times advising the expansion of the museum staff") or move "both times" after "staff".
  • Fort Concho Museum and Bell, Klein and Hoffman, an Austin-based architecture firm specializing in restorations - This is strange because the firm's name is "Bell, Klein and Hoffman", but the sentence structure may indicate "Fort Concho Museum and" is part of the name. I would rephrase this to clarify the distinction between the two entities, e.g. "Fort Concho Museum, along with Bell, Klein and Hoffman, an Austin-based architecture firm specializing in restorations" (though this sentence already has many commas).
  • On January 1, 1986 - needs a comma after this
  • and announced in 2017 that it would use the donated money and other proceeds to expand its visitors center and rebuild Barracks 3 and 4 over 2018. - The way the sentence is set up, it sounds like the donor from 2015 made this announcement. However, I think the museum made the announcement, so that should be clarified.

Involvement in the YFZ ranch raid

  • This seems like it is a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of things. Is it possible to merge this into the previous section somehow, condensing this into one or two sentences?
    • It doesn't really fit in anywhere else, though. It would be odd to put it under "Preservation", as it has nothing to do with the preservation of the fort. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. In that case, I think it can be left as it is. Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this off later. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds and architecture

  • The material used in the fort's construction was not produced locally - Would it be easier to say "produced elsewhere", "sourced externally", or something similar instead of "not produced locally"?
  • a ventilator and a single chimney each - One ventilator and one chimney?
  • Barracks 1 had two dining halls to Barracks 2's two, - If they both had two, this can be condensed.
    • This was a typo; Barracks 2 has one dining hall. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barracks 3 and 4 were identical to Barracks 5 and 6. The latter buildings were demolished after the fort was abandoned and have not been rebuilt. - This should probably be rephrased. Based on grammar, here "the latter" refers to Barracks 5 and 6, but based on context, I assume it refers to Barracks 3 and 4. Maybe something like "Barracks 3 and 4, while identical to Barracks 5 and 6, were demolished after the fort was abandoned and have not been rebuilt."
  • About 50 feet (15 m) of the headquarters building is the former residence of Oscar Ruffini,[96] San Angelo's first civic architect. - 50 feet frontage?
    • Nope, typo. Fixed now.
  • The post hospital was built from 1868 to 1870. - This seems to be a different building than the reconstructed hospital today. I would suggest "The original post hospital..."
  • The houses generally follow an L-shaped plan with a primary residential building and kitchen, connected by veranda - One veranda per house or one veranda total?
  • Officer's Quarters 8 and 9 were built to the same plan as Officer's Quarters 1, and were also completed in 1872. - This comma is not necessary here.
  • Is it "Officers' Quarters" (plural) or "Officer's Quarters" (singular)? Or does each quarters have a different plural?
    • "Officers' Quarters" (plural)
  • The buildings form a duplex stand to the same height and have two fireplaces each. - Should there be a comma after "duplex", or is "stand" an adjective?

@Vami IV: That's it for me. Looks pretty good from my view. Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • All sources look good.
  • Spot checks. Comments refer to this version.
    • fn 45: Doesn't say that the 10th Cavalry replaced the 4th
      • Done; I changed "in Texas" to "at Fort Concho". I do not think this is OR, despite none of my sources using the word "replaced" (weird, in context). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 66: Text: "including what is now Fort Concho Elementary, constructed on the parade ground in 1907." However the source only says "one of four ward schools"
      • Oops. Reduced to "including a school [...]" now, and the second mention has been revised. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 75: "reconstructed Barracks 3 and 4 would house a research library on loan to the museum" Source says Barracks 3 and Mess Hall 4
    • fn 4, 32, 70 - okay
    • fn 37 - okay, although I would have thought that keeping over a hundred women and children captive in a corral over the winter worth a mention, especially in view of the 2008 incident.
  • Link 10th Cavalry on first mention in "Base of the 10th Cavalry" section. Also "one of the two cavalry units of the 'Buffalo Soldiers', commanded by Colonel Benjamin Grierson" is ambiguous; consider re-phrasing.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "1872 summer campaign" - we tend to avoid seasons as their timings differ depending on where in the world you are.
  • "American colonization of Texas" could that be usefully linked to History of Texas?
  • "retreated eastward throughout" for someone who has limited knowledge of this region of the US, could you put that into context, i.e. towards...?
    • I am not sure how; the entire frontier in Texas was pushed back. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "billet" isn't a particularly common word, could be linked.
  • You link "Captain" but not "Major General", what's the approach to linking ranks here?
  • " guard and the abundance of water and nearby" and and, could this be " guard, the abundance of water and nearby"?
  • I would link "quartermaster" instead of the standard military ranks (which are somewhat irrelevant to understanding this particular article).
    • "Quartermaster" linked.
  • "Progress was slow.[19] All building..." any chance of merging so we don't have a three-word sentece?
  • "However, in 1868 had the regional... " I'm failing to parse this sentence.
    • Edit scar, now fixed. I forgot a word, well name, and namely, Cram. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh you do link quartermaster, just not first time.
  • Consider linking commissary.
  • Link "US War Department" first time.
  • "$24,009,375" probably okay to trim this down to $24 million, nearest dollar inflation is somewhat over the top.
  • Link garrison.
  • "punitive expeditions" can we expand on what this means, did they just ride out and arbitrarily slaughter some indigenous people?
    • Yes. That is exactly what they did. From Sheridan himself, "Only good Indian is a dead Indian." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Kiowa from" link?
  • "the Mescaleros of" link?

This is a really good article. I've reviewed up to the "Relationship with San Angelo, Texas" section now, more to follow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and mighty kind compliment. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a half-section of land" any indication as to how big that is?
  • "L.S." normally spaced.
  • "government-contracted sutlers who" no idea what a sutler is unless I click, and the sentence doesn't provide the context, so wonder if this could be expanded a little.
    • Changed to "merchants" for both occasions, under protest.
  • "residential lots and its" lots was mentioned in the previous section, link it first time.
  • "officer's residences" is that "officers' residences"?
  • C.A. - spaced again.
  • "After the museum ... moved the museum..." bit repetitive.
  • "equivalent to $91,829" and following examples, once again let's not get too precise, probably $92,000 would be accurate enough herer.
  • "but there was only one property purchased in that decade;"' -> "but only one property was purchased in that decade".
  • "on October 15, 1966 it " comma after 1966.
  • "the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS " reptitive.
  • "expansion of the museum staff. That expansion..." repetitive.
  • "This money had.." These funds had..
  • "The parade ground was then ... the parade ground to a" repetitive.
  • "16 original buildings, six reconstructed" MOSNUM, all numerals or all words for comparable values.
    • Done. You are wrong, as MOS:NUMERAL reads Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words., but also Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure at MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • ""$2,000,000 " probably a good shout for $2 million.
  • "The museum announced in 2017 that..." -> "Two years later, the museum announced.." (to avoid quick repeat of museum and repetitive "in XXXX" year phrasing).
  • ""by the collection of historian Douglas McChristian" any details on this? He wasn't notable (?), but what was his interest?
  • Latter-Day is hyphenated.
  • Mormon could be linked.
  • " the YFZ Ranch. " it's the first mention, is there a context for this, i.e. where was it, how close was it to Fort Concho etc?
    • Found an article I overlooked when I first wrote the article. 45 miles from San Angelo. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Grounds and architecture". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last set:

  • "Fort Concho is, like the forts..." that "is" really hangs here, could you put it after the second comma?
  • "with the only ornament in the buildings are the" doesn't parse for me. Maybe "being" instead of "are". Or ditch the "with".
    • Replaced "are" with "being". I think this was another edit scar.
  • "was sourced externally" what does that mean?
    • Exactly what it sounds like. Replaced "sourced externally" with "imported" for clarity.
  • Ah, I see it. Perhaps end that sentence with a colon to indicate the following sentence explains what it means.
    • Done. I specifically do not do what you did above in my reviews, by the way, because it doesn't make the reviewer look good or the nominator feel good.
  • Link for enlisted?
  • "one ventilator" what is that in this context?
  • "1869 and 1870, respectively, " are those commas needed?
  • "they were lost" how does one "lose" a dining hall?
  • "building was built" vaguely repetitive, can we use an alternative?
  • "the court martial" link?
    • Added.
  • "Post hospital" what does that mean?
  • "E.H. " spaced.
  • "and in fact its" is "in fact" needed for an encyclopedic article?
  • "continued functioning as " continued to function
  • "restored with funds" restored it?
  • " 26–28, 29–30" why isn't that just 26–30?
    • Appears to be an erroneous combination of two earlier citations when I was trimming cruft. Fixed now, and more accurate. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Salt Lake Tribune has a The.
  • Consistent ISBN formats.
  • This article doesn't appear to be directly in the "National Register of Historic Places in Texas" navbox at the bottom so it shouldn't be there.

That's the end of my review, phew eh? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fort_Concho/archive1&oldid=1023977617"