Talk:Frederick Notrebe

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:Frederick Notrebe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 02:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Aeengath (talk · contribs) 16:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. I will be reviewing this article against the GA criteria shortly. -Aeengath (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

Well-written

The article is clearly written and free of grammatical or spelling issues.

• The article lacks a {{Short description}}, which should be added at the top of the page per WP:SDESC.
  • Added Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Noted
• The lead section is concise and accurate but should also summarise his dominant role in the eastern Arkansas cotton market, his position as the largest slaveholder in Arkansas Count, and his influence on regional economic development (through land donations and bank expansion). These are central to his notability and should be reflected in the lead per MOS:LEAD and MOS:BIO.
  • I've tried to reflect this in the lead more - is this better? Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, this is perfect. Just a couple of small thing: "dominant" instead of "dominate" and a missing space in "Notrebehelped"; I’d also suggest breaking the lead into two paragraphs, with the second starting at "Notrebe’s land holdings grew." Aeengath (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

    Hi Hog Farm, just following up in case this was missed. Everything else is looking good and nearly wrapped. If you're happy to tweak those last bits in the lead, I’ll be ready to pass the article. No rush at all, just let me know. -Aeengath (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

    • @Aeengath: - Yes, I had missed this - the changes have been made now. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The biography section is well organised and flows. Subsections are not necessary at this length (4,000 characters). The prose is mostly clear and encyclopedic, just a couple of fixes:

• Typo: change "Arkanas Post" to "Arkansas Post"
  • Fixed Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Noted
• For clarity change "the archaeologist believes that he entered the country at New Orleans" for "According to archaeologist Kathleen H. Cande, Notrebe likely entered the United States at New Orleans"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Noted

Verifiability and No Original Research

The article is well cited throughout, with every paragraph supported by inline citations. No OR or SYNTH is apparent. Most citations are in {{sfn}} format.

• The source Encyclopedia of Arkansas by Kathleen H. Cande is cited multiple times using <ref name="encyclo of arkansas" /> including within an EFN note. For clarity and consistency it would be better to convert it to {{sfn}} per MOS:CITEVAR and list it alongside Johnson and Bolton.The EFN note can be reworked using {{efn|group=note}} to keep it functional.
  • I've converted this to sfn using a format that was OK'd at my recent successful FA nomination of Battle of Arkansas Post Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Noted. Great to know that format worked well on Battle of Arkansas Post. That’s an excellent article, really impressive piece of work.
      • I actually wrote this article after a reviewer of that article suggested linking to Napoleon, Arkansas#Frederick Notrebe and I thought it would be worthwhile to create a separate and better-sourced article for Notrebe. Hog Farm _Talk 02:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

      Thanks for taking the time to build this out as a standalone article, it’s a great addition. Just a small note: Is {{efn|Also spelled Billette{{efn|Cande|2023}}}} a copy-paste slip. Should that be {{efn|Also spelled Billette{{sfn|Cande|2023}}}} instead? Aeengath (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

      • Yes, I've fixed this. Hog Farm _Talk 12:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Circa 1810, Notrebe immigrated to the United States of America;" - the NPS archaeology report on Arkansas Post (available here) gives a precise date: "He emigrated to the United States in 1809." (That same document states that he served in Napoleon’s army but this should not be added without confirmation from a reliable secondary source)
  • Both Cande and Johnson express uncertainty about the year and neither attribute this to 1809. This is a case where I think the two biographical works where the authors specifically researched Notrebe carry more weight than a more general archaeological report. Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Noted and agreed.
• "Notrebe helped bring a branch of the State Bank of Arkansas to Arkansas Post and donated land for the site" - the same source gives a date: "A branch was established in 1839 on a lot he donated."
  • I can't get that PDF to load right now but the weather messes with my internet connection so I'll try again tomorrow when hopefully it will be less humid. Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    • No worries, same here!
      • I got it to work this evening - I've added the date for this. I wrote Real Estate Bank of Arkansas several years ago; my primary project right now is to try to get a featured topic out of the Vicksburg campaign battles but if I have time I might try to bluelink Arkansas State Bank sometime. Hog Farm _Talk 02:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

      Noted, thanks for adding the date. The Vicksburg article sounds like a solid FT goal. Aeengath (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Broad Coverage

The article covers all key aspects of Notrebe’s life and significance. The treatment of slavery is factual and proportionate. That said, the wider economic context could be made a bit clearer. The NPS archaeology report on Arkansas Post links the region’s cotton boom directly to "cheap slave labor" and describes Arkansas Post as a major centre of production (pp. 98–101). If it feels appropriate, adding a sentence to reflect that broader context might help situate Notrebe’s business success more fully as a result of the plantation economy, in line with WP:BIO.

Like I said above, my internet isn't working well enough to load the report today (probably weather-related); I'll try again tomorrow. There might be something in Bolton as well. Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I've expanded a fair bit using Coleman - do you think this is sufficient or would more be helpful? Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Yes this feels more balanced now. Both mentions of slave labour, here and in the lead, help bring out its essential role in the economic foundations of his wealth. Aeengath (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article maintains a neutral tone throughout. Sensitive topics such as slavery are presented factually with appropriate context. No undue weight is given to any viewpoint.

Stability

The article appears stable with no sign of recent edit wars.

Illustration

No image is present. This does not disqualify the article but a relevant historical illustration could enhance it. I’ve uploaded File:Steamboat transporting cotton Arkansas Post 1875.jpg from the NPS archaeology report, in case it’s considered suitable.

My primary concern with using that image would be that it post-dates Notrebe's time at Arkansas Post by over two and a half decades, with significant changes in steamboat usage in general and a major war between Notrebe and 1875. Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes and agreed. I’d suggested the image since it was next to his bio but you’re absolutely right that it reflects a very different postbellum context.

Conclusion

The article is well-written, well-sourced and broadly meets the GA criteria. Once the minor issues noted above are addressed, I will be happy to mark it as a GA. If anything is unclear feel free to ping me. -Aeengath (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

All points raised during the review have now been addressed. This article is clearly written, well-sourced, stable and meets the GA criteria. Thanks again to Hog Farm for the work and constructive responses throughout the review. I'm marking this as a Good Article.—Aeengath (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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.