Talk:John Pope (military officer)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Pope (military officer) article.|
|John Pope (military officer) has been listed as a History good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: July 25, 2014. ( ).
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources
in relation to this article:
This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
With the proper infobox this is a "B-Class" article.--Looper5920 07:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
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. older ≠ wiser 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)
Promoted Major General Twice?
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."
- 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)
- 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.
- 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! Talk • Work 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! Talk • Work 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! Talk • Work 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! Talk • Work 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! Talk • Work 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- 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:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?