This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fort Scott National Historic Site has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 31, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that by the time
Fort Scott was completed, it was already obsolete? |
The article includes the sentence (emphasis added):
It was hope it would place the Cherokee and provide some defense against the rampaging Osages
This makes no sense. Clearly "hope" should be "hoped". Also, in context, I'm guessing that instead of place the article meant placate, but I don't have any knowledge of the situation and thus don't feel comfortable changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.251.99 ( talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My preference is to leave the WP:lead until last, review the body of the article first and then go back to the lead; however in this case I will start with the lead first.
I'm happy to acknowledge that work has been put into producing this article and in providing references. However, at the present time, I don't regard this as a GA-class article, its a C-class / B-class article. Possibly a B-class article, but no more than that.
I'm willing to put the GAN On Hold, so that there is an opportunity to improve the article up to GA-class.
Necessary Improvements
Pyrotec ( talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I got busy with other things, but am attempting a go with doing it tonight.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A reasonable WP:GAN candidate that has been pared back over the life of the WP:GAN, presumably due to lack of information.
Pyrotec ( talk) 13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fort Scott National Historic Site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fort Scott National Historic Site has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 31, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that by the time
Fort Scott was completed, it was already obsolete? |
The article includes the sentence (emphasis added):
It was hope it would place the Cherokee and provide some defense against the rampaging Osages
This makes no sense. Clearly "hope" should be "hoped". Also, in context, I'm guessing that instead of place the article meant placate, but I don't have any knowledge of the situation and thus don't feel comfortable changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.251.99 ( talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My preference is to leave the WP:lead until last, review the body of the article first and then go back to the lead; however in this case I will start with the lead first.
I'm happy to acknowledge that work has been put into producing this article and in providing references. However, at the present time, I don't regard this as a GA-class article, its a C-class / B-class article. Possibly a B-class article, but no more than that.
I'm willing to put the GAN On Hold, so that there is an opportunity to improve the article up to GA-class.
Necessary Improvements
Pyrotec ( talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I got busy with other things, but am attempting a go with doing it tonight.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A reasonable WP:GAN candidate that has been pared back over the life of the WP:GAN, presumably due to lack of information.
Pyrotec ( talk) 13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fort Scott National Historic Site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)