Talk:Fort de Chartres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Illinois.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

A Wikipedian removed Fort de Chartres from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: 21 February 2007

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Castles WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Fort de Chartres is a current nominee for WikiProject Illinois' Collaboration of the Fortnight Join in on the discussion about this nomination.

Fort de Chartres is a current nominee for WikiProject National Register of Historic Places' Collaboration of the Fortnight Join in on the discussion about this nomination.

	To-do list for Fort de Chartres:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: This article isn't awful, it just needs some work. Though it appears the primary editors affiliated with the original GA nomination are no longer active here this to-do will provide everyone with a starting point. To do as of 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Citations: There are no inline citations to speak of, they need to be added. Reliable sources need to be found. Ownership of the fort by the 42nd Royal Highlanders, Inc. of Lafayette Indiana several hundred years ago may not qualify as a reliable source. History: That's a pretty short section all things considered, expand. Infobox: National Register of Historic Places needs to be added with proper information. See {{Infobox nrhp}} Its designation as a National Historic Landmark should at least be mentioned. Since it was a fort; was there ever any fighting near or at it? Make sure sections are appropriately titled (e.g. 'Ruin and reconstruction' sounds an awful lot like some 'History' to me). Do we have enough sections? Is there other key information missing? More on sources: Let's see if we can find some scholarly sources. I know, I know, it might actually require going to the library. Crap. A mcmurray 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Copy edit: Pretty much goes without saying, but, just in case it doesn't. A mcmurray 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Page move?

I nominated it as a good article, but I was wondering if this would better be called Fort de Chartres State Historical Site or Fort de Chartres, Illinois. Also might fix the first sentence to be better in context. —Rob (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer the current name. Because the fort is not a town, adding "Illinois" doesn't seem exactly right. As for "state historical site," that is the current identification, but the fort, of course, wasn't that for most of its history. The name as it is seems to be the most common identifier, so it seems appropriate. -- DavidH 14:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The recent first sentence rewrite really skewed things. The article titled "Fort de Chartres" is not focused on a state park, it is about the French fort built there in 1720. There is a now state park at that site, but its name is not simply "Fort de Chartres" and it certainly isn't the most important thing for the first sentence of this article. This article is focused on the fort(s) and their history, with some mention of the modern-day historical site. It's the same with almost every historic structure -- its article should focus not on the fact that something is now a museum or a preserve, but about what made it significant enough to become a museum or state park -- what it was. The Pallace of Versailles is now surley a French museum, but that's not what it was built for, and the name, and the intro to an article about it, should reflect that. The same is true of Fort de Chartres. I'm reverting for these reasons. DavidH 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisting

I do not believe this article satisfies the good article criteria and will be delisting it if the concerns are not addressed in a timely manner.

Specifically:

Criteria 2b: "the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations is not mandatory, it is highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.[1] Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline."

• I do not believe the the website of the 42nd Royal Highlanders, Inc., of Lafayette, Indiana qualifies as a reliablie source simply by being in possesion of the fort hundreds of years ago. *Added note: Another source is a dead link as well.A mcmurray 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The lack of inline citations in an article with so many assertions of fact is certainly off putting as well, though not required, it is highly desirable. I would go so far to say I would never promote an article to GA without inline citations.

I have placed maintenance tags on the page. I will allow ample time for the primary editors and others to address my concerns. I have added it to my clean up to do list as well and will be bold, if I have the time. In the meantime if these concerns go unaddressed I will delist the article. Not to be a jerk but GA status should reflect fine work and I don't think this qualifies. A mcmurray 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)