Talk:John Pope (military officer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Louisville / Ohio (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.
 
WikiProject Missouri (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Pritzker Military Library WikiProject (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Assessment[edit]

With the proper infobox this is a "B-Class" article.--Looper5920 07:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ranks[edit]

A great number of the American Civil War biographies use the Eicher reference for basic military career progressions; it is based on a very exhaustive set of military sources. I have reverted some changes in a previous edit that used an antique Harper's Weekly reference. Although it may seem unlikely today, apparently West Point graduates at the time actually had brevet ranks as second lieutenants and were granted the full rank of second lieutenant only at a later date. And Pope's "promotions" for the two Mexican battles were both brevet ranks. Hal Jespersen 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that rather dubious, but I'll take your word for it and assume that you have examined the Eicher reference and that the article accurately reflects the source. I am restoring the link to what you call the "antique" Harpers. olderwiser 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to seem pejorative, but anything over 100 years old is technically an antique (except for cars, where it's 50, I think). In any event, Harper's is a primary source, written in the style of the time, and can't be relied on for the specifics of ranks and other military details when compared against a secondary source (Eicher, Warner, etc.) that is based on a historian's evaluation of numerous primary sources, including the ORs and US Army personnel records. Hal Jespersen 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is little in this article about his personal life. Was he married? Children? etc.Trucker11 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

It says "and received a brevet promotion to major general in the regular army on March 13, 1865, for his service at Island No. 10." And further below: "John Pope was promoted to major general in 1882 and retired in 1886."

83.255.70.208 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The article on brevet ranks is linked twice in the article and may provide the explanation you seek. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Pope (military officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stevietheman (talk · contribs) 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not in a position to do a thorough footnote-by-footnote review, but the lead section feels long and any effort to make it more concise would be worthwhile. Also, there are no inline citations in the lead. See WP:LEAD for what's expected for a lead section. The peer reviewer tool also turned up instances of weasel words. See WP:WORDS. Also, as I know a Civil War historian, he warned me about Shelby Foote's works being more about narrative than about proper history, so any material that solely depends on the listed work should be cited with a secondary credible reference. Since there's only one such visible citation, any other credible source that backs up the quote would satisfy WP:VERIFY. If there's any other content that relies on Foote's work, that should be addressed as well. On the positive side, I give high marks for the article's structure and overall content presentation. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • To break it down, I won't oppose GA if 1) someone well-acquainted with the subject combs through the lead, makes appropriate changes (possible reduction and/or inline citations), and certifies that it meets WP:LEAD requirements; 2) a second credible reference is supplied for the quote. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Copyedited. (Thanks for reviewing this, Stevie, but note that the PR script isn't very reliable; the "weasel words" it turned up were "it has been" inside a long quotation.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I had understood this limitation, but I was going off of "a few occurrences". But if it can't name them outside of that quote, then this is certainly not an issue. I scratched that point off my review. Thanks! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, thank you for your ce's from June 10. Am I supposed to see more recent edits, @Dank:? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No, early June was when I copyedited. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look for other sources and try to vary it a bit more. As for the lead, I agree that it's a bit wordy, so i'll shrink that down. Wizardman 21:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead and found a different (and better) source for the quotation that was a concern. Wizardman 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, it looks very close to GA-ready to me, except for the sentence beginning with "He achieved initial success against Brig. Gen. Sterling Price in Missouri..." -- It's on the long side and therefore a bit clumsy. If you can break it down into two sentences the way you think it should read, we'll be ready to go in my view. Great work! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That's now split into two and cleaned up a bit as well. Wizardman 22:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This article is now GA-quality as far as I'm concerned. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    The citation review was a matter of deciding that the sources appeared reliable, and after one switch, I believe they are. Now, that doesn't mean I verified the accuracy of the references as applied to the content because I don't have ready access to these references. But after a month and a half of review time (and as long as the references have been there), surely if anyone had a reference objection, they would have chimed in by now. I am depending on WP:AGF for this right now, although I (and I'm sure anybody else) would not settle for this if the article is submitted to be Featured.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Wizardman made updates to my satisfaction per my original review. Also, big thanks go to Dank for his copyedits.

Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Walter Donald Kennedy[edit]

He is a neo-confederate and part of the lost cause school. See: Lost Cause of the Confederacy TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)