Talk:Fort Corcoran

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 13, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
August 19, 2024	WikiProject A-class review	Demoted

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fort Corcoran. 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fort Corcoran. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726182747/http://suvcwricamp21.tripod.com/Artillery/1ltcmain.htm to http://suvcwricamp21.tripod.com/Artillery/1ltcmain.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACR (2023)

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.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Corcoran

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

I am nominating this for reassessment. This article has longstanding issues with unverifiable information that was present in the article at the time it passed ACR in 2007. Eight citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Duty was not entirely idyllic, however. Due to the fort's proximity to Georgetown, clashes between soldiers on leave and civilians were inevitable is original research, sourced only to an old letter; Due to Fort Corcoran's large size and proximity to Georgetown, duty as part of the fort's garrison was less of a hardship than it was at many of the more isolated forts in the defenses of Washington, such as Fort Greble needs a source other than the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, there's heavy uncited content, and much of the article is sourced only to primary source records. The Historical Marker Database source is user-generated and I don't think the ""History of Battery C, First Rhode Island Light Artillery". Archived from the original on 2007-07-26." tripod website is reliable for A-Class either. I don't have the sort of sources that would be necessary to resurrect this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Comment - I am not likely to be able to do more with the article than I did in the past few hours. It is not enough to avoid a delist. I have reduced the number of citation needed tags to three. My guess is that a source was used for the two comments about life at the fort for which there are no citations but it may be difficult to find it and thus determine whether it is reliable. I have removed the reference to the Historical Marker Database and replaced it with a citation to a JSTOR article which says the marker was placed by the Arlington Historical Society; I added at the "approximate" location. Although I think the Official Records are probably reliable enough for some of the routine facts for which they are cited, I think the use as a source for so many of the facts in the article is problematical and not appropriate for extensive use in an A class article. It is not reliable in the example(s) provided by HF. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hog Farm and @Donner60, I've made some preliminary edits. I would like to try to restore this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? 20 days seem to be enough to me. I know this reassessment has been open for 3 months now but I might be able to get a rewrite done. Matarisvan (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the article improved. I think that as long as the nominator, @Schierbecker:, knows that it is being worked on that person will be glad to keep the matter open. I worked, with HF and another user on a GA reassessment last year for several months before we got it back into shape. I wondered whether at least two of the sentences on life at the fort with citation needed tags could be omitted if they can not be sourced. They are interesting but don't seem crucial to me. Donner60 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. What's another few months? Sorry I can't help more with this project. Schierbecker (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Schierbecker, my apologies but I am too busy with rewrites for 2 FAs and 2 GAs and therefore cannot find the time to work on this article. I thus will have to vote for a delist of this article. My apologies once again for needlessly lengthening the review process. Matarisvan (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.