Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donner Party/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [1].

---

Donner Party

Donner Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Karanacs, Malleus Fatuorum, Moni3 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Donner Party/archive1

A harrowing tale of bravery, hardship, and cannibalism in the old Wild West. It was hard to read about and hard to write; I hope the consensus here is that the effort was worthwhile. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Echo Malleus' intro to say of all the articles I have written, none of them have been this difficult to read about. It was sometimes miserable to feel the suffering of these people and I realize I have no sense of humor about their trials. What they went through was absolutely brutal. But I hope the article explains it well. I hope once you get started reading it, it will be impossible to stop. This isn't a train wreck that you cannot look away from. This disaster left train wreck far behind in the dust 38 miles back. Thanks for reading and let us know what we can do to improve it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments 67kB of readable prose - needs some trimming. I can offer suggestions, if the editors are willing to cut. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy to listen to any suggestions, although I'd dispute your needs some trimming. Sometimes the story has to extend to that eleventh page. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• The fact is that the article takes over an hour to read, with any close attention. Our readers will generally not pay attention that long (my college students certainly won't). I think doing justice to the story requires paying attention to the genre we are writing in, which requires summary style. I will provide a list of suggested tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Look forward to your suggestions, but I'll need some convincing. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• It's now down to 61kB, 10,761 words of readable prose. Malleus Fatuorum 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've added my suggestions on the talk page of this FAC - apologies for the delay. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• We've incorporated most of your suggestions, Awadewit. The article is now around 9400 words, and is much tighter and easier to read, in my opinion. Thank you very much for your help. Karanacs (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - I'm currently watching the talk page. As a published expert on the Donner party has raised some questions about the article (specifically issues that an expert is better at addressing than I am), I'm going to watch those comments carefully before supporting. I am particularly concerned with the following issues: 1) outdated sources; 2) injection of editorial interpretation, often overly emotional writing; 3) some factual errors in the article. It is rare that we have the opportunity to have articles reviewed by experts. I am curious to see how this will go. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It lacks an opening sentence. The first sentence should summarise the lede, just as the lede summarizes the article. jnestorius^(talk) 00:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not my understanding of what a lead is. Maybe what language I use to define a lead is not the same language as yours. Can you give an example of what you mean? --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hopefully I've addressed the point you're making Jnestorius in my response to Brianboulton below. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

TBH I don't think that works; the transition from sentence 2 to sentence 3 is too abrupt. Here's my suggestion for the lede:

The Donner Party (also called the Reed-Donner Party) was a group of American pioneers who became trapped by snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains in the winter of 1846–7 while migrating from Missouri to California. When their food supplies ran out, some resorted to cannibalism to survive, eating those who had already succumbed to starvation and sickness. Of the 87 who set out, 42 died en route.

The Reed and Donner families set off in a wagon train in May 1846, on a journey that usually took about four months. They chose to follow the Hastings Cutoff, a purported shortcut route to California which Lansford Hastings had promoted despite never having traveled it himself. The winding route through the Wasatch Mountains and Great Salt Lake Desert resulted in the loss of many of the party's cattle and wagons, and fragmentation of the group into bitter factions.

The pioneers were a month and a half behind schedule when they reached Truckee Lake in the Sierra Nevadas in early November. Trapped by an unusually heavy snowfall, their food stores ran out. Members of the party set out on foot to obtain help, and several rescue attempts were made. The last survivors were rescued in mid-March.

Western immigration decreased significantly after news of the Donner Party's fate spread, until gold was discovered in California in 1848. The episode has endured in United States (U.S.) history as a tragic event during which the pioneers resorted to cannibalism. Historians have described it as "one of the most thrilling, heart-rending tragedies in California history", explaining continued interest in the story because "the disaster was the most spectacular in the record of western migration".

Para #1 is of the form I'm advocating. I added a few bits but mainly rearranged the existing lede. jnestorius^(talk) 10:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jnestorius, you've got a dangling modifier in there: "Trapped by an unusually heavy snowfall, their food stores ran out." It wasn't the food stores that were trapped. The Grammar Grinch 18:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

I understand what you're saying about placing cannibalism in the first sentence, but I have reservations about doing that. Their story endures for this very reason, but the cannibalism was the end result of en entire universe of bad luck directed toward them. It's difficult to decide what to do here. On one hand, pandering to the most sensational aspect of this story by bringing it out in the first sentence overshadows the deeper details of what occurred. These weren't just cannibals; these were normal people who were put into an awful position to make choices that are so unique their story still horrifies. On the other, it's going to be pretty much what people come to read the article for. I'd like to read what others have to say about it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your points are valid for a magazine article but not an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't assume the reader has any prior knowledge of the topic. A magazine article can exploit the expected readership's existing information and emphasise the difference between the common-knowledge view and the deeper view. It can use a narrative build-up, which will have one resonance for readers who know what happens at the climax, and another resonaance for readers who don't; both resonances are effective in a magazine article but inappropriate in an encyclopedia. I appreciate and agree that we must not sensationalise; but neither should we be too circumspect or reticent or coy. jnestorius^(talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am fully behind Moni3, and I would very strenuously oppose any attempt to introduce cannibalism in the lead without first giving its context. The suggestion that we were writing a magazine article rather than an encyclopedia article I will simply dismiss as insensitive ignorance. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some misunderstanding. Leaving cannibalism to the second or third paragraph is absolutely fine by me. But the opening sentence should state that the Donner Party endured numerous misfortunes and travails, and many of its members perished. It should not state that the journey usually took four months. jnestorius^(talk) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I don't often enthuse, but this is superb. I was very much reminded of when I read Voss by Patrick White, years ago when I was a student - the article is that good. Too good for me to bother with my normal nitpicks—I don't really want to change anything. The only thing I would say, about the lead thing above, is that WP:LEAD says: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Your opening sentence doesn't do that. Perhaps it should be redrafted so that it does, but don't change too much. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's hard to get it into one sentence, but I've tried to get it into two. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Leaning to support: for more details, refer to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Donner Party/archive1#Jappalang's comments.

  Contents: I am still puzzled by some conflicting content (perhaps language is the issue), so I hope to have them addressed (see this FAC's talk page).

  Prose: I have some suggestions to make as detailed; regardless, the prose is more than wonderful enough to win me over.

  Images: Most images are okay on copyright grounds; I am encouraged to see that the nominators are proactive in getting images with verifiable sources. One image, however, requires some attention as detailed in the talk page. no issues, either in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  Overall, I would support once my more serious concerns are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Update: after Malleus and Karanacs' work, I have only three two serious concerns for addressing. The rest of my thoughts are more of possible improvements. Jappalang (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Changing to full support; whatever concerns I have remaining (except one) I consider not opposable. The circumstances on Salvador's death (per this FAC's talk page) warrant a check, but I am confident the nominators would address this. Jappalang (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Although Jappalang's comments are extremely incisive, none of them could possibly prevent me from supporting the most compelling read I've yet encountered – on purely diegetic terms – on Wikipedia. At points the language is exquisite, and highly evocative of the era. While that might necessitate slightly straying from an encylcopaedic tone, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. A fantastic read and wholly troubling. Seegoon (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: The tables all appear to be collapsed by default. This is contrary to the MOS (because when the article is printed part of it would not be shown). There are also a couple of places where the images cross section boundaries a little awkardly (and there could be a little better image/quotation/table staggering in a couple of places too). Nevertheless a very nice article. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are perhaps reading from a different MoS than the one I see, which says: "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable for use, but should not be used in article prose." The collapsible tables in this article are not used in article prose. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't see any inline citations linking the decline in migration to California with the news of the Donner Party. Could it not just be coincidence? jnestorius^(talk) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Added citation to Unruh (1993), who says explicitly that the decline in migration was because of the Donner Party's fate. Malleus Fatuorum 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't read the placement after "...25,000 people went west" as covering either "Emigration to the west decreased..." or "The ongoing Mexican-American War may also have deterred emigration", since they're substantively unrelated assertions. I suggest repeating the REF tag three times, assuming it's the same pages in Unruh that make all three claims. jnestorius^(talk) 09:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unruh cites the numbers of people going west in 1847, 1848, and 1849. Rarick suggest the Mexican War was the cause of the dropping numbers. I've cited this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (I'd support but there might be a conflict of interest as I've worked on several articles with Malleus), "Luke Halloran, a young man who seemed to be getting sicker with tuberculosis every day, was passed from family to family, as none could spare the time or resources to care for him.[27]" - later we learn that he died, but that he was nursed "to the end" by Tamsen Donner. I'm not sure if he went begging from wagon to wagon, or if each family looked after him for a short while before booting him out, and was Tamsen Donner his last call? I know it isn't important in the grand scheme of things but I think those two sentences could be joined with a couple more words. Parrot of Doom 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've changed that slightly to "nursed at the end", as it seems that he just happened to die when he was staying with the Donners. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support and quibble ....and I thought this would be about doner kebabs! Just one niggle, where is Blacks Fork - not shown on map or explained in text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: eh! I'm afraid this has turned into a "too many cooks spoil the stew" situation. The article originally nominated was full of "brilliant prose" and I really give all the credit in the world to Moni, Karanacs and Malleus. However, all of this cutting and copy editing has been a detriment to the article in my opinion. I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to support or oppose since I did a lot of research on this from the beginning and tried to help as much as I could. However, as others have done previously, I'll leave some comments on the talk page of this FAC. Hopefully we can get back to the brilliant prose that was there last week. Tex (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The lead looks fine now; one remaining issue I have is with the File:Donner route map.png. It seems (from the Talk: page) the Oregon Trail in 1846 did not follow the purple line on the map to Fort Bridger, but rather turned off it earlier at Little Sandy. If the map cannot be amended to reflect that, the caption ought to note it. jnestorius^(talk) 15:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have an amended map shortly. Kmusser (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from rʨanaɢ (talk):
  • The third paragraph has but the first relief party did not arrive until the middle of February 1847. There are not any months given in the other parts of the lede (either the first sentence which says the Donner Party set off in 1846, or the immediately preceding context which says family members made several rescue attempts but doesn't say when specifically those rescue parties set out. So it's hard to get a sense of how much time passed before the rescue party found them.
    • Good catch. I've added that this was almost 4 months since the party became trapped. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't know if this has been discussed above, but I could do without the 4th paragraph of Families and progress (the one basically just listing the other families that were in the party). In an article of this length, this seems like the sort of detail that can be left to the external sources and looked up by readers who want to know more—a note or footnote pointing to Rarick and Stewart would be sufficient, I think.
    • I don't think these should be removed. All of these families are mentioned again in the article. We can either introduce them the first time that we run into their names later, which may break up the prose flow, or we can not give further details when we later discuss them, but then we may miss out on motivations. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I think introducing them the first time we run into their names later is the best way to go. I didn't remember the names from the long list anyway (it's hard to remember lists of names with little extra information like that, and I don't know how many times during the reading of this article I was coming across some name, say McCutcheon, and plugging it into my browser search and going up the page to figure out who that was—introducing the names only where they become relevant would cut down on the searching). Plus, I'm not sure how necessary a lot of that information is anyway (as far as "motivations" are concerned); it looked to me like most of it was just saying how many people were in their family, and if they were immigrants, stuff like that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Wasatch Mountains section, what does it mean when it says the party was "joined by" the Graves family? Were the Graves also taking the Hastings cutoff, behind the Donners, and caught up with them? Or were they wandering around that general area and they came across each other (something that seems unlikely, given how hostile and uncharted that environment sounds)?
    • The Graves had set out after the rest, and caught up with them in the Wasatch Mountains. I've clarified that in the text.[2] Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like the citation style used within the notes, including parentheticals after the period and including a period within the parenthetical. I can accept having them after the period if this is a British-US difference or something like that, but is the extra period (after the page numbers in the parentheticals) necessary? It makes it look kind of messy to me.
    • Periods at the end of all parenthetical references now removed. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • When it says George and Jacob Donner left, does that mean just the two of them, or them and their families? And I was a little surprised that this was mentioned in such an offhand way; given that George Donner was putatively the leader of the party, shouldn't this have been a big deal? Do the books say a lot about it?
    • I've clarified that this meant the Donner families. Wagon trains were very loose organizations to begin with; the wagons have to travel in a line, rather than in a bunch for there to be enough room to maneuver, and in relatively safe areas it was not uncommon for the train to be stretched out over miles. In this case, when you have families that are already starting to blame each other for the delays, then it makes even more sense that some parts of the group may try to distance themselves from the rest. "Leaders" didn't have much responsibility in general and could be deposed at will if they ticked off the group. None of this is explicitly in the sources we used, as it's more assumed that the readers of those books are familiar with wagon trains. I'm not sure what else could - or should - be done to further clarify. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That makes sense. Just figured I'd ask, but it looks like there's probably not much that can be changed anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk)
  • There seem to be a lot of footnote pairs in which one footnote is to Rarick and the other is to the same fact in Stewart (or sometimes Johnson). Can these be merged together, like Stewart, p. 66; Rarick, p. 74.? This could cut down the number of references; it's what I did in Chinese classifier. In fact a couple of the references in the article are already like that; I just came across one Hardesty, p. 3, Johnson, pp. 8–9.
  • In Snowbound, I'm not sure whom the following sentence is referring to: the next morning they found the summit impassable, forcing them to return to Truckee Lake and the pioneer cabin. It seems to be a remnant that got stranded from copyediting or something, because in the version I'm reading there's no one past Truckee Lake at this point anyway (the Eddys already turned back and the Donners aren't there yet).
    • They camped for the night, intending to try again the next day. Then it snowed and they couldn't make it. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • • Hm, so should it read forcing them to remain at Truckee Lake? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
          • This has been fixed - the latter half of the sentence is now gone. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of Reed attempts a rescue: where is Bear Valley (where Reed went looking for the people) in relation to Truckee Lake and the camps? Knowing that would give me a better idea how far off Reed was, but I can't find Bear Valley on the map. (I notice that one paragraph later you mention Reed got to within 12 miles of them, but anyway this still reads awkwardly to me.)
    • It is, at least now, on File:Donner_route_map.png. It's close to Sutter's Fort on the left-hand side of the map. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Oops, looks like it was there all along; my bad! (This is why I shouldn't read at 2 AM :P) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Minor question about File:Map of Truckee Lake and Alder Creek.svg: the Graves-Reed place is labeled as "Graves-Reed camp", but in the article it sounds like they had an actual cabin (like the Breens and Murphys).
    • Perhaps this was changed since you looked at it, but right now it says "Graves-Reed cabin" and "Donner camp". Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, looks like Jappalang fixed it in the meantime. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • After walking for 2 miles (3.2 km) they burst into tears and began to pray, overcome by exhaustion and emotion. Refers to Eddy and Graves, or to "the rest of the group"?
    • "Eddy and Graves, clarified. Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• That's all. Overall I support the promotion of this article—as Moni said above, this is a gut-wrenching read and yet I couldn't take my eyes off it. There are, of course, little things that can be tweaked (such as my comments above) but there always will be little things, even after this is promoted, no article ever looks perfect to every editor. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support definitely one of our best - I was nearly moved to tears. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. First of all my compliments to the primary authors—overall an excellent job describing a complex and heart-wrenching story. I'll almost certainly support promoting this to feature status, but I did lay out some (mostly minor) issues on the talk page here. I'm happy to help out addressing some of these, particularly with respect to the opening of the background section, if that would be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent piece of work. It's on the long side, and I had to read it in bits rather than in one sitting, but looking over it there's nothing obvious that can be cut. I learned a lot and was moved by it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was watching as it developed and read it again last night and today. Personally I favour long articles that you can set you teeth into. IMO it accurately reflects the major sources. The article is a great achievement. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've read the article three times now, and I find nothing lacking. While, at 9,379 words it is long, it can still be read comfortably in an hour, and the level of detail is important for a full understanding of the events. There's some articles that stray into meaningless details, but this isn't one of them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.