Talk:Mark Matthews

Mark Matthews has been listed as one of the Warfare 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 17, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 30, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that, at the time of his death, 111-year-old veteran Mark Matthews was seen as a symbol for the Buffalo Soldiers?

Current status: Good article

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Longevity Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people 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.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Ohio 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Mid-importance).

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

World War I service

This article doesn't mention any service in World War I. I assume he was in the service then, but there is no mention of being overseas. Why the link on the article page? --Daysleeper47 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Markmatthews.jpg

Image:Markmatthews.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure requires more sources

Note that the recent AfD debate on this article was closed with the following comment: "the result was keep, with the provision that the sources CP mentions are added. If they are not, then this article can be resent to AFD.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's AfD it then. Neal (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeesh Neal, give me a few days to get to this. I'm working and then traveling for a few days, so I won't be able to big things (GA reviews, references for the List of centenarians or sourcing this article) until the 20th at the earliest. Furthermore, once I do get on break, I want to save Carlo Orelli first. I'm not entirely certain that it's worth saving but, since it was my first WP article (clearly before I understood the criteria for inclusion), I want to try and save it if I can. I kept my promise with Moses Hardy, I plan to do so here as well. Cheers, CP 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. You have my admiration. Neal (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Orelli sourced. Mark Matthews is the project of the day. Cheers, CP 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope I've done my job. Cheers, CP 04:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

There were a few small problems with this article, but nothing which might have hinder its promotion for too long. I have changed all the small stuff which I felt needed it, and I have one or to queries below. Please let me know if the changes I made were correct and answer the questions below. Once these are dealt with then I will be happy to pass the article.

The infobox indicated service in World War I but the article gave no mention of this. Please confirm whether or not he did serve in World War I (i.e. in France rather than Stateside) and give some background as to why he was not sent overseas with the army.
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was not called the Queen Mother until 1952. As the article is talking about 1931, this is an anachronism and I have changed it.
I have changed that he left the army several years before desegregation. The US army was desegregated in 1948/49 before the Korean War, so although its not known exactly when he left the service, it can't have been years before desegregation.
Is there a reason it mentions specifically that he never complained about segregation? Was it raised especially in the sources?

Once the above questions are address satisfactorily I will pass this very nice short article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not serve in World War I - that was a mistake left over from either the templates that I used, or the original article before. The 10th cavalry did not serve in Europe, as the Europeans had no need for calvary. I have cited this fact with a (hopefully) reliable source. If you don't think it's reliable enough (I just hoped it was because it was .org and had the word "institute" in its title, haha), I can find another one.
Ah, you're absolutely right. No excuse for me not catching that, thank you.
I must have misinterpreted what I read. Thank you for that.
Yes, at least one source spent a (small) paragraph on how he perceived his experience as a member of a segregated army unit, which I thought might be interesting/notable, since he didn't seem to mind, or at least never complained. If you don't think it's worth keeping, I can try to reword it, or just ditch it.

I think I've addressed everything. Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to work on. Cheers, CP 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent answers, and the article is now a GA, congratulations. The reason I asked the last question was that I happen to have written one of my undergraduate theses on the Buffalo Soldiers and in the interviews I read for that, few if any black soldiers were irritated by segregation (they were extremely irritated by the myriad of other injustices they faced, but most seem to have considered not having to fight alongside white soldiers they didn't trust an advantage more than anything.) In not complaining about segregation therefore, Matthews would be the rule rather than the exception. However, if a source has commented explicitly on this then it should probably stay in. As for the source you used for the World War I thing, it does seem at least quasi-official and I don't have a problem with it. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting actually, I never even thought that it could be seen as an advantage! Haha. Thank you for the review! Cheers, CP 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mos non-compliance?

i read over both versions of the disputed edits, and the article is much improved after my initial edits removing redundancies, and resolving several other mos issues,. according to wp policy, no such discussion is required, and wholesale reverts are inappropriate. however, if there are errors in content and/or policy, by all means, have at it, but blanket claims of non-compliance cannot be made to justify reverts of otherwise valid edits. --emerson7 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my talk page, I have taken this issue up with the original GA reviewer. Cheers, CP 16:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the original reviewer and was asked to come here and give my opinion on the changes.

Firstly, a few of the changes are marginal improvements, for example I think that the sentence on when he left the army (Although it uses the word army too much) is a bit tighter.
However, the other two principle changes are much harder to understand. I cannot see why there is any need to hack up the lead like that. This is a major error and the original, fuller lead should be restored to that it properly introduces the article. No good reasons have been given for shortening the lead and I cannot think of any that might apply.
The new image, of the Buffalo Soldiers, does not comply with WP:Fair Use. It goes not illustrate any really important part of the article and if this article went up to FAC, the nominator would certainly be instructed to remove it. I don't know where it came from, but it needs to go back.

And really, that is it. All the other changes are cosmetic and down to the personal choice of whatever user is making the edit. Since CP has maintained this page since its creation, he deserves at least the chance to discuss these changes before they are made. I recommend that the article be reverted back to its original situation and CP then choose which of the new edits to implement in the article. If Emerson7 wishes to make other significant changes that they should discuss them here first and not resort to IP addresses to revert back to a worse version of the article. If anyone has any comments, please bring them to me here or at my talk page, Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going over it again, I appreciate your time. I will clean this up shortly. Cheers, CP 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Matthews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]