Wikipedia:Peer review/Fremont Emancipation/archive1

Fremont Emancipation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thinking about submitting this for GA. Would appreciate any comments, critiques, etc. This article was created as part of the American Civil War Task Force "to do" list. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Very interesting stuff. As I am not a historian of the American Civil War period my comments will be confined mainly to general issues such as prose, citations, image licencing etc. Someone better qualified than me might need to check for comprehensiveness.

• Citations: Some quite significant statements seem to require citations, for example:-
  • "This threatened to tip the delicate political balance in border states. Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland all might have been pushed towards secession if such a precedent had been backed by Washington at the beginning of the war." (The reference to "Washington" is a bit confusing, too; perhaps "the government" or "Lincoln"?)
  • "Amidst the resulting public outrage against Frémont, Lincoln sent an order removing him from command of the Department of the West on October 22, 1861."
  • "The outrage was only a short-term effect, however, and soon subsided."
• Lead
  • I think that the military rank "Major-General" should be fully spelt out in the first line.
  • To comply with WP:LEAD, the most significant fact about the proclamation, indicating its notability, should be in the first paragraph, immediately after the introductory sentence. More generally, this brief lead needs eXpanding; at present it does not meet the requirement of WP:LEAD to provide a full summary of the whole article. For example, the third paragraphs states Lincoln's dilemma, but does not say how he coped with it.
  • The words "in fact" are unnecessary in the second paragraph and the adverbial qualification "particularly", in the third paragraph, is vaguely non-neutral. I have lightly copyedited the third para, but as per above, you need to extend it.
• Fremont
  • "1850s" not 1850's with apostrophe
  • You say he was "given a commision". I don't know how things worked in the US in those days, but I imagine he had to be appointed in some formal way, by some formal person or authority
  • Mexican-American War requires a date.
  • It's not worth shortening "Major" to "Maj." (saves one character), and "then Maj." looks and reads strangely. Why not delete the "then" and simply call him "Major"?
  • Another opinionated adverb, "Unfortunately", should be removed.
  • "ran cross-purposes" → "ran at cross-purposes"
  • 1856 election: as you have given these percentage votes, to avoid readers wondering about the other 22%, you could mention that these went to a previous president, Fillmore, standing as a candidate for the "Know-nothing" party.
  • "would be establishing" → "was to establish"
• Missouri
  • The rank "Brigadier-General" should be spelt out at first mention (same applies to first mention of other military ranks, and I would extend it to the use of titles such as "Gov.").
  • "Unions forces"? (third para first line)
  • Is the Missouri State Guard the same as the Missouri State Militia previously mentioned? If so, consistent terminology should be used.
  • "now Governor-in-Exile Jackson." Very confusing phrasing, particularly the use of "now". When was Jackson "exiled", anyway - no previous mention of this?
  • The image of the Wilson's Creek battle has a PD-US licence, but I think this should be PD-Art
  • The declaration of martiial law should be given a date.
• Proclamation and reaction
  • Is the proclamation that Fremont finished penning on 30 August the declaration of martial law previously referred to? This should be made clear.
  • In whose judgement is this "the most controversial passage" of the proclamation?
  • Paragraphs in a factual encyclopedia article should not begin "In fact...". The paragraph could begin: "Very few slaves were freed as a result of the proclamation."
  • "as well" is another non-encyclopedic expression that can be discarded.
• Lincoln's reaction
  • "Lincoln would not allow..." Probably better as "Lincoln could not allow..."
  • "... Lincoln sent an order removing him from command of the Department of the West on October 22, 1861." As, I believe, the date refers to Lincoln's order, the sentence should be rearranged: "Lincoln sent an order on October 22, 1861, removing him from command of the Department of the West."
• Aftermath: another sentence that looks in need of citation is: "His removal from command of the Western Department did irreparable damage to his reputation."

I have carried out a number of punctuation and minor prose amendments. On sourcing, you may be asked to justify why you are using a 1918 history of Missouri. Surely more up-to-date works exist?

As I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, please contact my talkpage on any matters concerning this review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and helpful comments. I've been rather tied up this week, but I hope to get around to making these changes in the next couple of days. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(Note: the link from the article's talkpage to this review is not working. I've tried purging but to no effect)

I fixed the link - the article now has an accent on the e in Fremont's name, so it was looking for a PR with that exact title. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response. Sorry this has taken me a while to get to. Your review is very much appreciated, but real-life matters have prevented me from doing much editing recently. At any rate, finally got around to it and here's what I've done:

• Citations: I added citations in all the places you suggested.
• Lead: I made your suggested changes and significantly expanded the lead. I think it now adequately sums up all the major points of the article.
• Fremont: Addressed all these suggestions. The abbreviations on rank come mainly from a manual of style adopted by the American Civil War task force that rates abbreviations as preferable to spelling out rank. But, I think you're right, the first time it appears, it should be spelled out. I took care of the confusing voting percentages by removing Buchanan's and just indicating Fremont's percent of the vote.
• Missouri: I think I've covered all these suggestions. I did a little re-writing to explain that Gov. Jackson fled St. Louis and where the the Missouri State Guard came from.
• Proclamation and reaction: Got these. Yes, the August 30 proclamation was the same as the aforementioned proclamation of martial law. I've clarified this.
• Lincoln's reaction: Made your suggested changes.
• Aftermath: Added a citation for this sentence.

Thanks again. If you have any other comments, just let me know. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to the 1918 history, it just happens to be an informative source that I found useful. The bulk of references are new works, so I think they balance out the older one. Historical Perspective (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)