Talk:Conestoga wagon

Conestoga wagon has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 6, 2024. (Reviewed version).

United States: Old West Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Low-importance).

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old

Original article by Paul Schils from The Netherlands (09 Sep 2004)

Phantom redirect to Fr:Islam

Does anybody know why this page redirects to the French Wiki's article on Islam? I can't see anything in the code. This doesn't happen when one clicks on the current revision in the history, but it does when one clicks on a hyperlink to "Conestoga_wagon" in another article. --Adamrush 13:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wagon does not need to be directed to this webpage. Although there are similarities like 4 wheels on the cart, a covered wagon is built differently and is used to carry people as well as products. For pictures of some covered wagons, visit some pictures of covered wagons that look differently. However, continued input is requested for this page from others. --Mcdav

Is this vandalism or just a goof?

There's some bad problems with the layout of this article but I have the flu and am too tired to fix them, so I'm just being lazy and tagging it. =/ 134.50.7.201 06:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. Looks like the Dec 17th edit DID add some useful information though, that should probably be readded. Maybe I'll try to remember to do it when I don't have a fever but it'd be appreciated if someone else would do it. >.<; 134.50.7.201 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the diary

they had diarys that they made that told about there day and wat they did —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.108.244.154 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

EDIT: I dont know exactly how I'm supposed to edit the pages properly, but I changed 7,300 in the text to read 5,300 because that is much closer to the actual conversion rate for 100 pounds for 100 miles into Kg-Km (5,273 would be more exact) - Bailen

stop redirect

'prairie schooner' gets redirected here, yet there is also Prairie Schooner. Perhaps the redirect should be deleted.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

serious, pervasive error (Conestoga vs. "Covered Wagon"

This article misunderstands the difference between a Conestoga and a prairie schooner. I suspect that further revisions will continue this error. NONE of the illustrations on this page are Conestogas. A Conestoga is a very specific type of heavy freight wagon with a curved bed. Prairie schooners were ordinary farm wagons, which had the lightness and durability necessary for a cross-country trip. Conestogas are associated with the 18th century and the East Coast; prairie schooners with the 19th century and the overland trails. For an authoritative discussion of the difference between the two wagons, restrict your Googling to authoritative Oregon Trail sites.Bentruwe (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is really needed is a separate page for covered wagons (includinging the "prarie schooner", with a link to this page), and this page should be modified to be specifically about Conestoga wagons (the heavy cargo wagons). -- Mshark 2008-07-24

I removed the references to westward expansion, the irrelevant photos, and added a paragraph, with reference, to the effect that Conestogas were not the same as prairie schooners. Not a very neat or tidy job, but at least it gets this whopping misinformation out of Wikipedia. --DPL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.152.241 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conestoga wagon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 11:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to check this out this weekend. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Just checking in, will you be able to start the review shortly? PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Was planning on starting today. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, see you then. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, ended up dealing with some other stuff tonight and didnt get around to this. Will be able to tomorrow. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can wait for the time being. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede quite solid. A bit on the larger size, but for an article this big it's all good.
Conestoga River isn't linked in the Origin section.
I feel the alternative name for covered wagons might go better in their first mention.
Description section extremely solid. Only possible change I'd make would be removing the subheading "General characteristics", as that's what would already be assumed by "Description" without a subheading.
I don't quite know what a running gear is - is there a good place to link it, or a way to shortly describe what that does?
Extremely minor but I'd just wikilink the "wagon jack" portion of the "Conestoga wagon jack" image caption
Production section good.
I feel there might be a bit too much context for what the Pennsylvania Dutch are here; I think that paragraph could be cut down to just a couple sentences.
Image caption beginning "The spread of railroads" should end with a period.
Whenever you have "(Town name), Pennsylvania", you should put a comma after Pennsylvania if it's not the end of a sentence.
Legacy section good.
- Implemented all of the above suggestions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

All appear properly licensed. Not a requirement, but alt-text would be nice for accessibility reasons.
- Added alt text. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Well formatted, with generally high quality sources all around. A couple inconsistencies:
- You use a different kind of ISBN, as well as a superfluous OL, for Smith (1988)
- Technically, Ellis et. al 2023 isn't a journal article, but a report.
- In lieu of an ISBN, maybe Reist (1975) and Shumway & Frey (1968) should be given OCLCs?
- You're not consistent about which journal/book sources have "retrieved on", and I don't think that's really something that gets used outside of website and online news sources.
  - Removed some instances of "access-date" and retained them in "other sources" where material is archived. I removed the OL for Smith (1988) but am unsure as to what I should do regarding the ISBN. Implemented everything else. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple sources don't pass the sniff test.
- Clark (2017) isn't actually academically published, and I don't think Clark hits subject matter expert status; I don't think that's appropriate.
  - I decided to replace it with different verified citations in all but one area since he did cite his sources most of the time. I kept it in the end because he's the only person who touches on its 21st century relevance in some form, but I can remove that as well if you wish. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check to come.
- Shumway & Frey 1968, pp 14–16: All 3 usages check out to me.
- Shumway & Frey 1968, pp 152–153: Checks out.
- Shumway & Frey 1968, p 237: Checks out
- Shumway & Frey 1968, pp 87–108: Wide page spread, but checks out.
- Terry & Robertson 1985, pp 25–27: checks out
All the Berkebile 1959 cites check out.
Ditto on Breen 1997.

Spot check looks good to me, and everything else seems straightened out; this seems ready for promotion. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. If there is nothing else to do for the review, thanks for conducting it and good day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:57, 6 December 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.

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Conestoga wagon from the early 19th century

... that the Conestoga wagon (pictured) has a boat-like shape but is unsuitable for traveling on water bodies?

Source: Conestoga Wagon 1750–1850: Freight Carrier for 100 Years of America's Westward Expansion (p. 185-187)

ALT1: ... that between 1750 and 1775, as many as 10,000 Conestoga wagons (pictured) traveled within Pennsylvania annually? Source: The Conestoga Wagon of Pennsylvania (p. 155-163)
ALT2: ... that of the 156 Conestoga wagons (pictured) brought to the Braddock Expedition of the French and Indian War, only one remained intact by the campaign's end? Source: Conestoga Wagons in Braddock's Campaign, 1755 (p. 142-153).
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fictional planets of the Solar System

Improved to Good Article status by PrimalMustelid (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

article is recently promoted to GA, long enough and within policy. Hook is short and interesting. Picture is freely licensed and appropriate. QPQ is complete. I prefer ALT2. ALT0 is fine too. ALT1 isn't very interesting to me. Leave it to the promoter to choose between 2 and 0. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]