Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Concho/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2021 [1].
Fort Concho[edit]
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)
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Concho/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Image licensing looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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.
- "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.
- "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.
- "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
- "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?
- "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?
- "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)
- 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)
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.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}}.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 isOn 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)
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?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)
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)
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."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)
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)
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 thisand 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)
- I see. In that case, I think it can be left as it is. Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
I'll finish this off later. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
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.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)
- 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)
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
- I had to look up "confluence", whilst I'm sure its a suitable word, I can't imagine its a super normal one... could we say it a bit simpler? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- about 55,000 people visited the fort annually. - present tense "visit".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- l Philip H. Sheridan - our article is at Philip SheridanBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Similarly John P. Hatch is at John Porter Hatch.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is the massive image at the bottom really suitable?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose not. Panoramas at the end of an article are a flourish of mine, but this one isn't really that interesting. Removed.
- 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)
- Hope you are well Vami, didn't realise you had something up, so I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Doing pretty well, thanks. And again, for the comments. Godspeed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to support. Good work! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Doing pretty well, thanks. And again, for the comments. Godspeed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
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
- 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"
- 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)
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...?
- "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?
- I was trying to avoid having two links next to eachother, but that appears to be fine for military ranks. Think I've linked them all now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- " 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.
- 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.
- That is the result of Template:Inflation, which I make frequent use of in the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you can round the resulting inflated figure. Or else hand craft it. We shouldn't be implying a single $ level of accuracy when the original uninflated figure isn't even that accurate! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is the result of Template:Inflation, which I make frequent use of in the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link garrison.
- "punitive expeditions" can we expand on what this means, did they just ride out and arbitrarily slaughter some indigenous people?
- "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)
- "a half-section of land" any indication as to how big that is?
- A section is a square mile, so I've added a Template:Convert with a square mile. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- "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 alsoAvoid beginning a sentence with a figure
at MOS:NUMNOTES.
- Done. You are wrong, as MOS:NUMERAL reads
- ""$2,000,000 " probably a good shout for $2 million.
- Used Template:Format price instead. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- "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?
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)
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?
- 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)
- Good piece of work, and an enjoyable read from my perspective. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:22, 16 May 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.