This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Copper Basin (Tennessee) is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles
Talk:Copper Basin (Tennessee) is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this the first of the reviewee's articles that I have reviewed, they should note that I am a grammar pendant and will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. –♠Vami_IV†♠17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Copper Basin was known to the Cherokee as Kawa'na.[11] Copper from the basin was used by the Cherokee on a limited basis.[12] It would be nice to know more about the Cherokee's occupation of the basin.
Done - Added more information about the history of the Cherokee in the basin, as well as the possible origin of the name "Ducktown." Bneu2013 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copper was first discovered in the Copper Basin But the Cherokee were already getting copper from the basin?
Comment - I've added "by a European American" to the end of this sentence, as this was the discovery that confirmed to the settlers that there was indeed copper in the basin. Don't know if this is a permanent fix though. From what I can tell from the sources, the Cherokee were aware of the existence of copper in the basin, mining only small quantities, and the European settlers had probably heard rumors copper in the basin, but were not certain of its existence until the 1843 discovery. This will probably take a little more research, though. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
now known as Potato Creek [...] named Lemmons who was reportedly panning for gold Too much detail, axe.
In 1851, work began on the Old Copper Road [...] The Old Copper Road was completed in 1853, and is now part of U.S. Route 64. Two ideas for this: First, combine and condense. Second, replace "Old Copper Road" in the first bit of highlighted text and replace it with "a road" or something, and then name it in the second highlight.
The first citation is superfluous and just taking up space; it's not attached to a quotation and both sentences are from the same source. –♠Vami_IV†♠23:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
finding the mines difficult to operate, reopened the mines. The first part of this should be axed and just left for the end of the paragraph (By this time, however, the mines, lacking a cost-effective method of transporting the ore out of the basin, were forced out of business.).
Done - however, I will point out that the reason the mines were difficult to operated at the beginning of the war were different than the reasons shortly after the war. That is why that was included in this first sentence. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Confederate defeat at Chattanooga resulted restoration of the mines to Union Control, which proved a major blow Consider: The Confederate defeat at Chattanooga proved a major blow [...]
Comment - I fixed the grammatical error here. However, I think it's important to explain why the Confederate defeat at Chattanooga (which is a good 50 miles from the basin) resulted in loss of the mines in the basin, and why this was such a blow. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; my objection here is that the prose would suggest that the US government owned the mines, when it was the Confederate government(s) that had ceased the mines. –♠Vami_IV†♠19:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vami IV - I've worked on this part, added details and tried to clarify to make it easier to understand. Please let me know what you think about it now. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A sulfuric acid plant was constructed in Copperhill in 1942, and by 1949 liquid sulfuric acid was being produced.[13] The previous sentence was in 1936, and the next in 1937; this sentence should be moved into "Later years".
Fixed - rearranged section below to fit this sentence
the TCC was essentially divided when two of the unions joined the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and the other joined the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Was the company divided or its workers?
As a result, a six-week strike began on July 14, 1939. What came of the strike? Did any complications arise from the company having two unions? Actually, which one of those two organized this strike?
Done - added info about the strike, and how it was ended. Also added information about complications that arose during the strike. Don't know if this is entirely satisfactory now, but I think this resolves the questions about how the strike ended. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At first, [...] There's nothing to preface this. I'd remove it.
Done - replaced with "In the early years of the mining operations", since this logging only took place in the early years, and reforestation did not begin until the 1930s. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[...] the forests in the Copper Basin were logged to fuel the smelters, and as early as 1861, trees were becoming scarce. In 1876, the companies began importing logs from Fannin County, Georgia. Combine?
Two additional Supreme Court cases related to this injunction, Wetmore v. Tennessee Copper Co. and Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co., both in 1910, followed. Missing a citation and the result of these cases/their impact on Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Company.
One final concern: All of "Further reading" have dedicated Harvard citations, but the article doesn't use Harvard citations. "Further reading" is also a bad name for the bibliography (typically called "References"). I recommend deleting the |ref= parameters (which will save total article size) or converting to Harvard citations (which will of course link directly to the source). –♠Vami_IV†♠23:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Important note - I've also changed and added a few things, mostly in the early mining history section. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at these changes to see if there are any issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done, 
Fixed, 
Added, 
Not done, 
Doing..., or 
Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Doing... - looking for that at the moment. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Done - found a NASA satellite image that I have inserted. Let me know if you'd like any of the images rearranged. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed - cut "common"; I think referring to these simply as "borders" makes the most sense. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Added - added Treaty of New Echota, the treaty which specifically relinquished this land to the government, even though the Indian Removal Act of 1830 initiated the whole process. I don't think that would be necessary to include here, though. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
