Template:Did you know nominations/Spanish Fort Site (Holly Bluff, Mississippi)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Spanish Fort Site (Holly Bluff, Mississippi)
[edit]... that Mississippi's Spanish Fort earthwork was built long before the Spanish reached the region?- ALT1
... that Mississippi's Spanish Fort earthwork was not built by the Spanish?- ALT2
- ... that Mississippi's Spanish Fort is neither Spanish nor a fort?
Comment Trying for a hook that shows the disconnect between the site and its name in as little space as possible but making as much sense as possible. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- Just realised that I forgot to add anything about the nature of the site; I've added that and revised the proposed hook accordingly. There's no cited sentence that expresses both facts in the hook (it's in the intro), as the citations are on separate sentences: the Spanish part is the sentence ending with "Spanish presence in the region", and the fort part is the sentence ending with "rather than fortifications". Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Nyttend (talk). Self nom at 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, almost everything looks good:
- Article is new enough; new article on same day as DYK
- Article is long enough
- Article is neutral and cites sources throughout; I cannot assess copyvio since I can't see source, so will AGF
- Hook is neutral, short enough, interesting, and found in article with proper citations (again, AGF)
- The hook is great--its brevity is its beauty--but it is misleading for some of us familiar with Mississippi. There is another Spanish Fort, called the Old Spanish Fort, located in Pascagoula, in the far southeastern part of the state. You can google "Old Spanish Fort Mississippi" for details. In fact, when I first read the hook, I thought that this was the referenced Spanish Fort. Might I suggest:
Alt3 ... that the Mississippi Delta's Spanish Fort is neither Spanish nor a fort?
I've made a couple of minor wording changes in the article. Here are some other issues that need clarification:
- the following sentence needs explanation (Location and excavations, sentence 3): "In 1988, the site was classified as being built by the Anderson Landing phase..." From the perspective of a non-archaeologist, I thought sites were built by people, so to say that a site is built by some entity called a "phase" makes no sense, and there is no link to aid with the understanding.
- the almost exclusive reference used, an article by Edwin Jackson, is about the Little Spanish Fort, which is not an NRHP property. Since I can't see the article, is it safe for me to assume that Jackson makes liberal reference to the subject site (which is NRHP), as well as, perhaps, other nearby sites? Was this site chosen for the article because it is NRHP, as opposed to writing about the better-referenced Little Spanish Fort, which is not NHRP? A quick web search did not include any hits on the subject site, but I did find a book that mentions the Little Spanish Fort here. Anyway, since I can't read the article, I'd like a little comfort as to its content.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- See Archaeological phase. I was planning to tell you that no such article existed, but I decided to be sure and found that I was wrong. I'm confident that this is the first time I've ever seen the article. As a result, I've changed the wording "built by people of the Anderson...", and I would have added a link to the first occurrence of "phase", but it's not used (and as far as I can see, can't easily be inserted helpfully anywhere) except in the names of specific phases. Still, the "people of the" should clarify things. Regarding your second question, I don't understand you. Are you asking whether Jackson really does mention the Spanish Fort Site? The answer is "definitely", but I'm still confused: either you should trust my use of the source and not need to rely on my answer here, or you should distrust my use of the source and decide that my answer here isn't reliable either :-) Meanwhile, I wrote about the site because it's NR-listed. Other people, such as Heironymous Rowe (whom I've frequently consulted for help), like to write about other major archaeological sites, but with very occasional exceptions, I'm not one of them. But why does it matter why I chose to write about this site instead of Leist or Little Spanish Fort? Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just realised that you made other comments. Given the fact that there's only one article on a Spanish Fort Site in Mississippi (and if we get an article on Pascagoula, it will be Old Spanish Fort (Pascagoula, Mississippi) per WP:NRHP naming conventions), we have no need to make the hook longer by introducing a more complicated geographical location. Without a link, most people will think this is downstream of New Orleans, and with a link, we distract readers unnecessarily from the hook. Finally, remember that you're supposed to notify the nominator when you identify problems; please don't again make me find it purely by looking through T:TDYK. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm bowing out of this review; perhaps someone less offensive than myself can pick up the review.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)- I think this needs more too. If the Andersen landing phase is key then we need to say what that was, when it was. Who were they? Is that the same as Middle Woodland period? It's just a red link. I presume 2:217 is the ref for not a fort, and 2:199 for not constructed by the Spanish. However why is it called the Spanish Fort? Did the Spanish use it later on as a fort? Secretlondon (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- <TLDR>The source for not-Spanish is page 214, which is cited at the end of the sentence that concludes with "Spanish presence in the region", but 199 speaks of the sites as being Woodland period, which implies non-Spanish. Your presumption is correct for the not-a-fort. I guess Anderson Landing is Middle Woodland, but I have no information on them; I've never before written about a site in this part of the USA, and I know almost nothing about the peoples that lived there during the Middle Woodland or other periods. You'll note that the identification of the site as Anderson Landing is tentative anyway, not something that should be seen as "key". Meanwhile, I found nothing about the origin of the name; the source discusses what it is thought to have been, which makes it quite obvious that it's not a fort, but it doesn't discuss etymology. This isn't relevant to DYK eligibility, but your final question has an easy answer: these enclosures are far too small to be used as forts, and the Spanish definitely didn't use it as such. When sites like this were first found after settlement, whether in Mississippi or in Ohio, they were thought to have been built as fortifications and later eroded by time, or something like that; see the "Purpose" section of Fort Ancient (Lebanon, Ohio) for more details on this specific issue. Probably it was thought of as a fort and had some sort of association with the Spanish in popular imagination; to quote Heironymous Rowe's speculation at his talk page: "There are also several other sites around the southeast with that particular name also, lol. De Soto sure spread it around, at least gossip wise amongst the white colonizers several hundred years later. He apparently slept in more places that G. Washington".</TLDR> Just curious — why is this an issue? It's not part of any of the DYK criteria, which don't include a requirement that the article be complete. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if your TLDR is aimed at me, and I'm not successfully reading your tone. Why is this an issue - because DYK is a mini review and we provide feedback. Feedback is how we all improve. It's a very obvious point from reading the article, and one we highlight with the hook! Secretlondon (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Don't understand you. It's definitely aimed at you, because I'm attempting to answer your questions, and I marked it as TLDR because I probably wrote a lot more than I needed to — I'm saying that my own thing was probably TLDR, and I wasn't commenting on what you wrote. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if your TLDR is aimed at me, and I'm not successfully reading your tone. Why is this an issue - because DYK is a mini review and we provide feedback. Feedback is how we all improve. It's a very obvious point from reading the article, and one we highlight with the hook! Secretlondon (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- <TLDR>The source for not-Spanish is page 214, which is cited at the end of the sentence that concludes with "Spanish presence in the region", but 199 speaks of the sites as being Woodland period, which implies non-Spanish. Your presumption is correct for the not-a-fort. I guess Anderson Landing is Middle Woodland, but I have no information on them; I've never before written about a site in this part of the USA, and I know almost nothing about the peoples that lived there during the Middle Woodland or other periods. You'll note that the identification of the site as Anderson Landing is tentative anyway, not something that should be seen as "key". Meanwhile, I found nothing about the origin of the name; the source discusses what it is thought to have been, which makes it quite obvious that it's not a fort, but it doesn't discuss etymology. This isn't relevant to DYK eligibility, but your final question has an easy answer: these enclosures are far too small to be used as forts, and the Spanish definitely didn't use it as such. When sites like this were first found after settlement, whether in Mississippi or in Ohio, they were thought to have been built as fortifications and later eroded by time, or something like that; see the "Purpose" section of Fort Ancient (Lebanon, Ohio) for more details on this specific issue. Probably it was thought of as a fort and had some sort of association with the Spanish in popular imagination; to quote Heironymous Rowe's speculation at his talk page: "There are also several other sites around the southeast with that particular name also, lol. De Soto sure spread it around, at least gossip wise amongst the white colonizers several hundred years later. He apparently slept in more places that G. Washington".</TLDR> Just curious — why is this an issue? It's not part of any of the DYK criteria, which don't include a requirement that the article be complete. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Long enough, new enough. AGF on the source as I don't have access to the journal. Would have preferred more sources if they are available. All okay - good to go. Secretlondon (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
