Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Wood Bush

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

James Wood Bush[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

James Wood Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this article can be considered an A-class article but may need extra peer review to get it there. The ultimate goal is to get this to feature article status as a very short featured articles along with a few other articles on Hawaiian and Pacific Islander combatants in the American Civil War.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Great little article! Only minor comments:

  • "Grzyb 2016," - this ref is not listed in the bib.
  • "more than one hundred documented Native Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants" - ok I find this a bit confusing. Is it "documented Native Hawaiian", like "card carrying communist", or is it "Native Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who are documented to have fought in the American Civil War"?
  • Ok. I never thought of that but your version flow just as well. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a pure readability prospective, there's one too many "Native"s in the lede. Since his lineage has already been stated, perhaps the second one can be reduced to "hundred documented Hawaii-born combatants", which is still factually correct?
  • How about removing Native from descent instead? I think it is important to distinguish between the non-Native Hawaiian but Hawaii-born combatants and the Native Hawaiian combatants. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should work. Just trying to get it to read smoothly, it's not a factual complaint or anything like that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I second Maury's comment above about this being a fine short article. I have the following comments:

  • The lead is a bit short - I'd suggest expanding on what his naval service involved, given this is his reason for notability
  • "with back pensions dating from May 8, 1897" - could this be simplified to something like "this was backdated to May 8, 1897?" Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter sounds more odd to me though especially since it is ending the paragraph.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, this might be a difference between Australian and US English Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: Just a quick one at the moment, according to this script, there appear to be a couple of ref anchor errors relating to the Manning & Vance references. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now. Thanks for the catch.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bush married a young girl at Lahaina": do the sources provide her name?
  • "of the LDS ward": I suggest introducing the abbreviation in full here
  • "Lorenzo Taylor, writing for the Deseret News", suggest adding the year here to make it clear that the comments were shortly after his death
  • Images:
    • "File:USS Vandalia (1828) sketch.jpg": the source link appears to be dead and should be updated if possible. Also, can you clarify, was the sketch made in 1828, or is a sketch of the ship as it would have appeared in 1828? If the former, the date should be added to the date field on the description page;
      • 1861 actually just found out myself updated it with better information. It's a crop of a larger engraving in Harper's Weekly.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "File:Honolulu-memorial-Hawaiisonsofthecivilwar.JPG": not sure about this one. The photographer has released the copyright of the image they took, but does the plaque itself have copyright? The freedom of panorama guidance at Commons doesn't seem clear to me, here. I wonder if Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) might be able to help clarify? AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's borderline - there's obviously an element of graphic design there, but the primary elements (the flags) should all three be well out of copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/James_Wood_Bush&oldid=730961271"