Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Alton

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.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK₀₀₄ 07:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Alton

Nominator(s): Rmrfstar (talk)

This is my first military history article, and I'd like to bring it to FA status. I just archived a Wikiproject:Military History Peer Review. It's up for WP:GAN simultaneously. It's now a Good Article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work, images have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the Background section "major-general William Waller" should be "Major General William Waller" (the rank in this case is part of a title);
    • Fixed.
  • the red wikilink for "Colonel Bennett" is not necessary as the link is too generic. If you know Bennett's first name, then an appropriate red link would be "Firstname Bennett", if not I'd suggest just removing it;
    • Fixed.
  • where you have the word "Boles's", I think that grammatically it should be "Boles'";
    • Both are acceptable to the MOS, and I prefer the former with proper nouns.
      • Okay, that's fine. Can you make them all consistent then, please? In the lead, for example there is Boles' and then later Boles's. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Fixed.
  • in the Background section, I think "the first of December" should simply be "1 December" per WP:MOSDATE;
    • Fixed.
  • in the Battle section "Sir Waller" - this doesn't sound correct to my ears (I might be wrong though). Is it traditional to use this title, or wouldn't it be "Sir William Waller" (I've heard of people with titles being addressed as Sir Firstname, but not Sir Surname);
    • Fixed.
      • Can you please check this again? I don't think it has been fixed. The issue is with this sentence in the Battle section: "Sir Waller mustered his men..." and then again in the Aftermath section: "During and after the battle, at least 500 men were captured by Sir Waller...";
        • Sorry, I think I fixed a second incidence of that problem. I got them all now.
  • the images are quite large, is there a need to force their sizes, or could they not simply use the "thumb" size parameter (which would allow individual brower's to choose their own sizes)? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Not fond of simultaneously submitting for both GA and A-class. Means that we have to do things here that should have been caught by the GA reviewer. I'm all about minimizing my workload.

That's not an issue of simultaneity. If you think A-Class review shouldn't waste time with articles that don't already meet the GA-criteria, it should be required that noms already be GAs. Otherwise, (as far as I can imagine) it's simply my responsibility to keep up with the criticisms, in order to make sure two reviewers don't make the same comments.

• Some prose tags that need to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed each of those sentences to make them more readable. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have to support Sturmvogel this should not be up for GA and A class reviews at the same time. I was going to start the GA review but could not see the point as its up for A class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. Why?.. Also, if that's the consensus on the WikiProject, it should be mentioned in the nomination guidelines. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and I don't know if things have changed within the past year, but the MILHIST a-class review has effectively neutralized the GA review as a worthwhile endeavor. Indeed, the only purpose a GA-review may have is to have your article listed by Wikipedia in general, rather than just the project (since Wikipedia does not necessarily recognize project-awarded a-class assessment). Furthermore, the GA review has always been less rigorous (oftentimes gifted, to say the least), and so ultimately the two overlap in the sense that one would have to deal with any issues problematic in a GA review. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article was added to a Featured/Good topic the MILHIST A class is not recognised. So it does need the GA if not the FA grading. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think having the site-wide designation is a worthwhile endeavour, e.g. for Featured/Good topic. Overlap in the reviewer criteria isn't the question; simultaneous nomination is. And I don't see the problem *that* poses. Still, I'd like to ask on the GA talk page if possibly MILHIST A-Class articles could automatically be counted as GAs. I would imagine that the WikiProject's review process is well-enough respected for that. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, see my comments on my review of the GA nomination. I don't believe this article is ready for either GA or A-class, but it is nearly 1AM and I may be a bit tired. Perhaps other reviewers can weigh in. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was invited to review this article.
  • Bibliography: Publishers need locations. Book dates normally aren't given as month-day, is this important here? Maclachlan, Tony (1999-10-01). extraneous "r" at end of line.

Now all of the sources have locations. Would you prefer day-month? It's not important, no, but it's not bad to include, I think, if I have the information on hand. The "r" was removed.

• • Depth of research: You're using fairly generic survey works, rather than battle specific works. Why are you reliant on 19th century works? Reconsider.

I don't know of any books on this battle itself, a rather minor event. Three of the sources are not on the Civil Wars in general, but actually specific geographical regions of it. Do you have any other sources to recommend?

I don't think I'm reliant on 19th century works; only 2/9 of the sources are from that period. Many of the inline citations refer to Curtis, but only out of convenience, and all of the newer works agree.

• • Citation of Primary Sources found in 19th century works. You're using these as illustrations, equivalent to "pictures". What makes these illustrative of the rest of the text, or do they bear weight as evidence in themselves? The second would be OR. Citations aren't complete, they should be cited as individual letters in and of themselves. From, To, Date. In Containing Work. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I only see one primary source, and that's the quote box on the right. Indeed, this is a quote and an illustration of the text. Perhaps in referring to an incomplete citation you were looking at the first quote, from Godwin. This quote also includes a primary source document, and is primarily illustrative. I've changed the format up a bit to make the sourcing clearer. Thanks for the prompt criticism. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I am talking about Lieutenant Elias Archer [unknown remembrance] in Godwin Civil War in Hampshire 1882; [Anonymous] [untitled] Weekly Account 20 December 1643 as quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 47; "Ricardus Boles, Wiltoniensis in Art. Mag. Composuit Posuitque Dolens. An. Domi 1679." [epitath] [undisclosed location] quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 48; Earl of Crawford to Sir W. Waller [letter] [undated] as quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 49; and, Ralf Hopton to Sir W. Waller from Winton, 16 December [1643] as quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 49. Are you sure Curtis _isn't_ a sourcebook? I'd suggest you fix this as these are opposeable under A1. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.