Talk:Fort Jackson (Virginia)/GA1

GA Review

Great work on this article! I'm going to put it on hold for about seven days to give the editors some time to address a few concerns. The list of GA criteria is clearly met for numbers 4, 5, and 6 but I have some points relating to 1, 2, and 3, if you'll indulge me:

The first sentence in the lede is very confusing: Fort Jackson was an American Civil War-era fortification in Virginia designed to defend the southern end of the Long Bridge, which connected Washington, D.C. to northern Virginia and served as a vital transportation artery for the Union Army during the war. What connects DC to Virginia? The bridge or the fort? Try splitting this into two sentences and it will look a lot clearer.

Done.

Also in the lede: After 1862, the fort was unarmed except for small arms and consisted of a wooden palisade backed by earthworks. Besides the redundant forms of "arms", it might make more sense to say: After 1862, the fort, which consisted of... A wikilink to earthworks would help the reader too.

Done.

The second paragraph of the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the article to come, talks about how it was named after Jackson City, a seedy town. There is no mention of this in the body of the article. The lede could also use some mention of the more recent plans that have come up, as the end of the article discusses.

Done.

Under "Wartime use", Company E was assigned there. Umm... yeah... and then what happened? If it's relevant, flesh it out; if it's not, remove it. My feeling is that this section could be bulkier anyway, especially since the first sentence in the whole article screams that it's a "Civil War-era" fortification - readers are dying to hear about the Civil War connection.

Unfortunately, it's kinda tough to dig up 140-year-old sources, and I'm not sure what other units garrisoned the fort. I have, however, added a bit more information about the 21st New York, since that unit doesn't have a standalone article yet. It was mainly an inspection station after 1861, and didn't get the attention in reports that other forts did. I've got two other images: One a contemporary map and the other an engineering drawing of what the fort's gates would have looked like, but this article is already a bit image-heavy for the amount of prose. Do you think they're worth adding? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Post-war use", the term "mothballed" is used. Is this a technical term? Could something more encyclopedic (and descriptive) be used? Under that same section, right at the end: The plan for the project includes a National Park Service observation that historical artifacts from Fort Jackson may still be present at the site. Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

Wikilinked "mothballed" and reworded the phrase slightly.

Any external links we can add?

Do you think it's worth adding links to the official Long Bridge Park site? Most everything I'd put in external links is linked in a citation already.

Citation style is a bit awkward, at least in my opinion. The latter part of the article has online citations that lack access dates. I also added a couple fact tags that should be sorted out.

Done.

Let me know when you begin moving on this stuff and how I can lend a hand. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up another editor's project. I reviewed my prior comments and your responses to them and I think I can strike them out (not doing so literally but, nonetheless...). Your edits were a great help so I'm going to pass this article. I'll let you take full credit, too... Well done! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]