Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natchez revolt/archive1

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Natchez revolt

Natchez revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Natchez revolt/archive1

Nominator(s): User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC) & User:Jsayre64

This article is about the revolt of the Natchez people against French colonists in 1729. It describes the background to the conflict and its results, which was the annihilation of the Natchez as a separate ethnic group. Under the previous title, Natchez Massacre, the article has undergone two failed FA reviews here and the latest in December 2012. Through 2013 the main contributor, Jsayre64, and myself (who participated in the failed 2012 review, opposing it) have added a lot of new content and many new secondary sources - the article now includes citations by all the main works describing the massacre, focusing on the most recent ones by Barnett and Sayre. The article just passed the MilHist A class review, which was a suggestion by a reviewer in the 2012 review, as a precondition for a further FAC review. Jsayre64 and myself feel that the article is now ready for a third and hopefully final try.

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cdtew - I've read through this several times, and can't find much with which I can quibble. As one editor who's focused on colonial America, I'm impressed by the quality of what you two have produced. Below are a few comments, which I hope you will address:

• "They also built numerous large plantations and concessions" - Do you mean Concession (territory)? If so, it may be helpful to wikilink it, since concession is not a common English word.
• "it was the Natchez female chief Tattooed Arm" & "When the Great Sun died in 1728 and was succeeded by his inexperienced nephew Tattooed Arm..." - It seems, based on the article linked in the latter sentence, and the plain meaning of the first sentence, that Tattooed Arm was a female, and was not the successor to Great Sun. If this is correct, is this an accidental omission? Or were there two Tattooed Arms, one being female and the other male? Regardless, it would appear that the wikilink in the latter sentence is incorrect.
• "One woman's unborn baby was torn from her before she herself was killed" - It's always tough trying to determine whether European claims about barbaric actions are true or exaggerated. I haven't read the source on which this statement is based (although it's on my list to read), but I think it's usually best to qualify these sorts of statements by saying something like "Dumont de Montigny later reported that one Frenchwoman's unborn baby was torn from her before she herself was killed." Even that gives a little bit too much credence to a potentially biased statement, but at least it identifies the person who reported it, allowing a reader to doubt it if they choose make their own decision.
• "Some scholars argue that the fact that the Natchez spared the African slaves was due to a general sense of affinity between the Natchez and the Africans" - who are these scholars? I think this needs some direct attribution.
• "tortured to death at the frame in New Orleans" - this is a little unclear, you might want to explain or clarify this, particularly so a general reader will know what "the frame" is. Other than the later parrilla, I'm not sure I even know what you mean.
• "the Great Sun" Appears to refer to one individual, although it also appears to be a title. This is problematic when, after the death of the Great Sun, you mention "A subsequent expedition led by Périer in 1731 to dislodge the Natchez captured many of them and their leaders, including Saint Cosme, the Great Sun and the Female Sun Tattooed Arm." Some clarification would help greatly.
• "In 1734 Governor Bienville attacked the Chickasaw" - this seems a little thin. In what way did he attack them?
• I think the "Historical Interpretations" segment needs something extra. It should either be re-named "Contemporary Interpretations", or should include the views of scholars from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. In other words, presumably the way the event was viewed in the 18th century likely doesn't persist. How did chauvinist late 19th century historians view it? How did ethnohistorians of the mid-late 20th century view it? Is there a difference between how French historians and U.S. historians write about the revolt? I think expanding this would make it truly comprehensive. You appear to have the sources - and, having read Gordon Sayre before, I'm sure those sources in particular will be useful in this task.

Really, that's it. It doesn't seem like much, but the historiography issue may be easier said than done. I will look in my sources to see if I have something useful for you. Cdtew (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've adressed those of your concerns that can be handled without additional sources, some clarifications mostly. The historiography is trickier, Sayre definitely writes about it in the Indian Chief as Tragic Hero, but not in as much detail as you suggest outlining trends in historiography up untill the present. There is a clear trend regarding the early French depictions that is described both by Sayre and Balvay, perhaps more could be included on this. I don't think "contemporary interpretations" would be a good title, but perhaps simply "subsequent interpretations" or "historiography" might work?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you can keep the "historical interpretations" title, but all I was saying is that the title implies there will be historical interpretations, not contemporary observations and reporting (which is what's in there for the most part). I don't think it requires an overview of the historiography, but just insert some comments about how the various historians have interpreted the event in your sources. Cdtew (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We have almost addressed all your comments, Cdtew, just not entirely the historiography matter. Do you think that section in the article is looking better? Jsayre64 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I am a little slowed down right now by some other work, and it may be a week before I have time to start rereading Sayre. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jsayre64 Maunus The historical interpretations section is looking a little better, but a lot has happened in historiography since 1854 (your latest source cited in that section. Historiography can be the toughest part about writing an article like this, but given it is likely a subject of some controversy (as most Euro-Native conflicts tend to be) I would imagine there has been some difference of treatment in the past two centuries. Without a more extensive view of how historians have viewed the revolt (provided that information is out there, which I believe it is) I'm not sure this can pass 1(b) and 1(d) in my mind. Keep working, though, you're putting out a high-quality product. Cdtew (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have looked for some sources that explicitly describe the changing views of the Revolt, but they are not easy to come by. For example Balvays book could easily be seen as a revisionist account that emphasises the colonial aspect of the interactions, but even in reviews of the book I do not find this characterization explicitly made through comparison with other earlier accounts. Sayre only evaluates the 18th and 19th century views. I could easily write a summary of the historians who have worked on the revolt in the 20th century as it is only about half a dozen - but any comparison would in effect become OR. It is not the case that the revolt has been a subject of controversy, most ink spent on writing about the Natchez has touched their kinship system about which there has been some debate (if not controversy). The most important change in writing about the revolt has been to start emphasizing the role of French colonialism as the trigger of the revolt (as opposed to mere savagery) and to see the revolt in relation to the disproportionate response that devastated the Natchez as a people. I could write this but currently it would be a kind of original research.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jsayre64: Let me know when you've finished adding to historiography, and I will take another look. Cdtew (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Jsayre64 Maunus I have read through the historiography section, and I'm satisfied that it's as comprehensive as it needs to be. I did do some rearranging, so that there would be some thematic consistency here. Feel free to tweak or revert if you disagree or think there's a better way to arrange it. It just seemed like it went from "Conspiracy" to "proven not to have been a conspiracy" back to "here are some more authors that think it was a conspiracy." As it is now it goes from "General interpretation" to "Conspiracy" to "No Conspiracy" to "Americans have historically had no interest". Cdtew (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks great now, more organized. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian Rose -- Recusing myself from delegate/coordinator duties, this is not exactly my area of expertise but thought I might be able to offer an additional perspective on prose, readability, etc...

• Copyedited, so pls let me know if I've misinterpreted anything; outstanding points:
  • "By 1700 the Natchez' numbers had been reduced to about 3,500 by disease, and by 1720 further epidemics had halved that population" -- Diseases introduced by contact with the colonists? Might be worth clarifying either way, and perhaps naming some as examples, if known.
  • "giving the signal for a coordinated simultaneous attack on Fort Rosalie and on the outlying farms and concessions" -- "coordinated simultaneous" sounds redundant to me, suggest dropping "coordinated" as "giving the signal" effectively conveys that IMO.
  • "A year earlier, the French West India Company gave up control of the colony to Louis XV" -- I don't get the significance of this point; also, if it does remain, I think "had given up" works better than "gave up" since we're going back a year.
  • "Saint Cosme, the new Great Sun and his mother—the Female Sun, Tattooed Arm" -- Just like to clarify who's who here, are Saint Cosme and the new Great Sun the same person?
• Structure seems straightforward, and the article appeared comprehensive and sufficiently detailed, overcoming one of the main issues raised in at least one earlier FAC.
• No dablinks found.
• I'll take as read Nikki's image review; haven't reviewed sources.
• Overall, I found this well written and easy to follow -- good job. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The disease is difficult to clarify, ultimately it did of course come form European contact, but many Indian peoples were decimated by European diseases years before they ever saw one themselves, so it is difficult to know whether it was in fact the secific French colonists or just the general onslaught of disease on the continent brought on by contact. I'll remove "simultaneous" as you are correct it is redundant. Saint Cosme was the new Great Sun, I'll try to make that less ambiguous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I believe I have addressed the rest of your comments. I am still working on the historiography issue that Cdtew raised, mainly planning things off-wiki, and I know that Maunus is too. Thanks for your input. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the resolution of my comments above, and see no issues with other changes since I copyedited. Let me know when the historiography mods are more-or-less finalised (we may be at that point now, I don't know) and I'll take one more look before formalising my support. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cdtew, Ian Rose, the last section of prose should be pretty solid at this point, but tell me if you have recommendations for tidying/organization, as the section has gone through almost a re-write. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now everyone seems happy with the final section, I'm pretty well ready to support too. One minor query: was Chepart's title/rank in actually that of "commandant"? If so, I think the last sentence of the first para in the historiography section should say "Commandant Chepart" (which you in fact use as the title of one section) not "the commandant Chepart". If "commandant" is an informal term, then I'd punctuate things, i.e. "the commandant, Chepart" (and you might even want to reconsider the section title). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. That was his title. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Good, all looks fine to me now -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• For passim refs, use the "loc" parameter instead of pages
• How are you ordering multiple refs by the same author? It's mostly chronological, but then Sayre isn't
• Second Balvay title needs endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me. I see that the earlier FAC complaints centered around too many primary source usage; assuming the listed bibliography & refs are accurate (can't really spot-check myself), that seems to be fixed now, so good work. My only complaint: the description of Chateaubriand's Les Natchez is incoherent. Who's Chactas? Does it matter that his name is the same as the Chocotaw tribe? (Checking the linked articles - which shouldn't count for this paragraph - he's supposed to be a Natchez Indian, not a Chocotaw.) Wait, Chactas has opinions on the French Revolution of 1789 but dies before the Natchez Revolt of 1731? Okay, I guess it means Chateaubriand has opinions on the French Revolution, but those opinions are being shifted back 100 years for more a loose parallel... maybe? I can understand that you don't want to spend 2 paragraphs on this, but this should either be expanded to explain Les Natchez in enough detail to make sense, or else not even bring up things that don't make sense without context. SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, that does need some clarification. I will try to work on that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the details about Chactas, because it probably isn't necessary to dive into the plot of that work of fiction and confuse readers. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.