Talk:Union Army Balloon Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Union Army Balloon Corps was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article might apply to GA nomination[edit]

It would need inline references and peer review, but this is a very fine piece of work. Tip of the kepi to you balloon watchers and their editors. BusterD 02:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job so far on the article. The footnote type references are considered important to any aticle above a B-Class rating. View any featured article and you can see how it's done. I think an article this size would need roughly 25-40 inline references. BusterD 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This article will undergo a series of inline references in an attempt to attain a Feature Article nomination.--Magi Media 06:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Quite nice. Another thing to consider would be applying for an A-Class rating. Kirill Lokshin 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is definitely ready for request for feedback, perhaps peer review. If Mike doesn't object, I'll put it up in 24 hours. BusterD 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Mike has NO objection.--Magi Media 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for GA[edit]

Some suggestions to help this obtain GA status,

  • The web references are not formatted properly, please check {{cite web}}
  • References go after a full-stop or commas, with no space. I noticed a few in the middle of a sentence, ex [9].
  • August 1, 1863 wikilink this date, also September 24, 1861
  • Washington Chain Bridge , external link in the middle of text
  • The article reads much like a story
  • Professor John Wise[9] was an older man, 27 years Lowe's senior, makes no sense
  • He did, however, receive , remove however

Please read Tony1's redundancy exercises to help improve the quality of content by removing redundancy. M3tal H3ad 11:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on Hold[edit]

I usually don't hold a GAC, but I can't grant Good Article status yet before several minor fixes & questions are answered below:

  1. As mentioned before by M3tal H3ad, statement of somebody is X years older/younger from somebody else does not make sense and it does not sound an encyclopaedic fact. Please remove them.
  2. Drop all "Prof." titles as the subject is not about his formal professorship.
  3. Were there only 3 chief aeronauts during the whole period of the Ballon Corps? If there are more, then please state why editors chose only to list the 3 persons in the article.
    There was only ever one official Chief Aeronaut as Lowe was named by the President. The Allen Brothers were acting in his stead, but never really got the recognition or title. And in three months they were gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magi Media (talkcontribs)
  4. Please find wikilinks of several jargons or put a brief explanation about them if there aren't any WP articles to link to. For instance, free flight, captive flight, tethered flight, etc.
    explained in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magi Media (talkcontribs)
  5. The Future of manned observation balloons section is totally unsourced. Some looks opinion without reliable sources to support it. For instance,
    • These depictions were paper theory at best designed by mechanical wizzes with no idea about aviation,... → please supply this sentence with source.
    • If Professor Lowe thought that he would have to drop ordinance from his balloons, he would have never offered his services → looks opinion to me. Drop it or rewrite it.

I give several days (see the template above) for editors to fix the above issues and also M3tal H3ad issues at the above thread. Happy editing!! — Indon (reply) — 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The promise did not last long and LaMountain went about his public derogation of Lowe as well as tampering with the other men in the Corps.

In what way did he tamper with the other men? TimVickers 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I used the word (tampering) that Lowe used when he lodged his complaint to Gen McClellan. e.g.: LaMountain was having the men refer to himself as the "Commander of the Balloon Corps." Generally he created an ill-will with the other aeronauts by making disparaging remarks about Lowe behind his back. So I changed the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magi Media (talkcontribs)

Hellooo!! Whoever edited my comments, please put signatures and do not mix with my comments. It is confusing to read who write which. Make a new indentation at the bottom of ones last comment, not in the middle!!! — Indon (reply) — 10:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, that was me. Thanks for the note--Magi Media 14:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln, Lincoln, Bo-Bincoln…[edit]

With this: "…with President Abraham Lincoln on July 11, 1861,…" you need to make it clear that Abraham was an American president. M3tal H3ad 03:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Somewhere in the line where the three words "President Abraham Lincoln" appear I need to add "American"?--Magi Media 17:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is not solely read by Americans. You should put: "U.S. President Abraham Lincoln". — Indon (reply) — 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If you do so, yours will be one of the infinitesimal minority of articles in the American Civil War series that bothers to say "U.S." We almost always use the following links: President Abraham Lincoln (and Confederate President Jefferson Davis). Hal Jespersen 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you revert Magi Media's message without edit summary, Hlj? It is considered as uncivil. I reverted back your reversion. No censorship in Wikipedia, okay? — Indon (reply) — 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a doggone minute, M3 and Indon! You mean after reading: "Union Army Balloon Corps." "Federal Army," "American Civil War," "Confederate Army," followed by "White House lawn," and "Washington countryside," that someone from outside the U.S. reading this article might not be clear on which President Abraham Lincoln, in blue ink, Lowe met with? And thanks, Hal, I'll bracket the word "President."--Magi Media 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now, I hope you two (Hal Jespersen & Magi Media) don't belong to the infinitesimal minority of American editors who thinks that the whole world should have known who Abraham Lincoln is, what Federal Army is, etc., when reading this article. Of course, you should not put every occurrence of Lincoln with U.S. prefix. Only put the first time his name mentioned in this article. Please don't forget that you're writing an encyclopedia here. A good encyclopedia article should have a clear understanding of writing for any common, even layman, readers who want to learn about a subject for the first time. — Indon (reply) — 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that I have to do it each time myself. I am questioning it being done at all. It's like insulting the intelligence of readers. The name Abraham Lincoln has to be more worldly notable than Mohammed Ali who has been acclaimed the most famous man in the world. Of course, if you think that this would hold up the article becoming a GA (I can't imagine) then I would be remiss in not doing so. It gives me pause to ask, after all that I have had to edit, "What next!" I can't imagine not being able to understand who the real President Abraham Lincoln is as a problem to grasping the essence of the article.--Magi Media 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that it is insulting the intelligence of the readers or the editors? I don't think any readers would get insulted by stating U.S. President Abraham Lincoln in the lead section. Why do you always think that an American knowledge is a common knowledge to the whole world? BTW, I won't reject GA for this small matter, but I expect that the article won't pass FA. — Indon (reply) — 09:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Whats so hard about adding two letters? not everyone knows what the white house is, not everyone knows where Washington is, not everyone, including me knows what the Confederate Army is. Other countries have presidents, you only have to mention it once. M3tal H3ad 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Five years late, I know, but isn't this "problem" solved by the fact that Wikipedia article have links to other articles withing them? If someone reading this article doesn't know who Abraham Lincoln was or what the White House is, let them click on the friggin' link and find out themselves instead of having to explain such things in an article that mentions them only in passing. I'm just saying.-- (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

GA passed[edit]

Per on hold review above. There are several errors & suggestions for improvement:

  1. Standardize the reference. If it is an online, then give its URL.
  2. There are two different publications with the same ISBN id.
  3. Improve the prose and drop unencylopaedic statements.
  4. Citation that only says: See XXXX with external links is incomplete and looks like a spam ext. link.

However, the material is good enough to stand as Good Article. Here I passed it. — Indon (reply) — 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, one and all, for your assistance in making this a Good Article.--Magi Media 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On hold

GA Sweeps (on hold)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • "The use of balloons as an air-war mechanism was not unheard of, going back to some military balloon observation used in American history" - This sentance makes little sense - when were they used in American history?
  • The whole first paragraph has to be much clearer - where did the concept come from? Who put it forward? Was this the first time that balloons were used in warfare? If not, then when had they been used before?
  • Link notable people in the body of the article, even if they have been linked in the lead.
  • What did Lowe do at the First Battle of Bull Run?
  • "he had already conjured up ideas for the use of balloons in this time of emergency" - These ideas were?
  • Sources should go after punctuation.
  • Although the prose is of a fairly high standard, there are a lot of problems. I recommend a full copyedit.
  • "Since Wise was still a no-show" - replace unencyclopedic language in the article like "no-show" with better prose.
  • More sources required - there should be at least one source every paragraph.

The article isn't bad, it just needs a thorough run through with the above points in mind in order to qualify for retention as a GA. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's been no activity here, and although I have reviewed my opinion sourcing, I still think this article's writing standard is not high enough to remain a GA. Its a shame, since I think that someone with a bit of knowledge about this could whip it into shape fairly easily, but as no one has come forward, I am delisting this article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

B-Class Rationale[edit]

Despite the fact that the article did not successfully meet the GA Criteria, it still contains meaningful information and references. I am therefore going to classify it as B-Class in accordance with WP:Aviation/Assessment. Codharris (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


The use of balloons in the West, specifically Vicksburg, is mentioned in the table at the top of the page, but only hinted at in the main text. I would like to see further information added on this matter, but am far too stupid to add such myself. Could some kindly Civil War nerd please help in this regard?-- (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)