Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jethro Sumner/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Jethro Sumner

Jethro Sumner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Jethro Sumner/archive1

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My fourth nomination from the series of North Carolina's Continental Army generals, the subject of this article was arguably the most successful of them all on the battlefield, especially given the fact the he survived the length of the war, and, despite frequent illness, managed to be involved in some more successful endeavors than his peers. That being said, like his peers, Sumner was forced to undertake the unenviable and unrewarding task of recruitment, which in North Carolina at the time made him unpopular. I'm happy to respond to any and all comments. This passed GA, A-Class, and I believe it meets FA criteria. Cdtew (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim as a transient reviewee with the Milhist project at the moment, I thought I ought to make the effort to look at one of the project's articles in return, albeit from a position of near ignorance. Looks sound, but some niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• substantial amount of land—"area" rather than "amount"?
• He is best known as one of four brigadier generals in the Continental Army from North Carolina —Is the claim to notability that he is a brigadier general or that he's from North Carolina, or both? Either way it seems a flimsy basis for fame.
• oftentimes—looks very informal to a Brit, is it OK in US?
• likely that Sumner would have retained close business ties with the province of his birth, and would likely...—lose a "likely"?
• Multiple references should be in numerical order
• Provincial congress—Capitalisation looks suspect
• Continental Army general... He was chosen to be a Major—I don't understand the capitalisation convention with ranks
• join with Robert Howe—Why "with", sounds as if they are both joining a third party?
• Refs Rankin 1971, p. 132... Rankin 1971, pp. 132-34... Rankin 1971, p. 134. seems excessive when all are covered by the middle ref, there are similar.

I may have another look, I just picked these up on a quick read-through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Jim, thank you for your well-reasoned comments. I have addressed all of your grammar comments in this edit, have reordered the only instance of out-of-order refs I noticed here, and took care of the Rankin page range issue here (I generally hate page ranges, so only cited the pages showing where the Congress opened its session and when it first discussed the generalship. Please let me know if you have any more comments, or if you believe I've left anything unaddressed. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm happy with your responses, and I have no further issues. I assume you will deal with EddieHugh's concerns, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Nathanael_Greene_by_C.W._Peale.jpg: first source link needs updating
• File:Sumner_monument.jpg: do the two licensing tags apply to different aspects of the work? If so, you might clarify which is which. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've gone and updated the Peale portrait links. For the monument, I placed a {{PD-art-70-3d}} tag on it, because I believe it's a safe guess that the artist who designed this monument during or before 1891 was dead by 1943; that being said, that's an educated guess, and I have not seen any indication of who the artist was. As for the duplicate tags, I removed the general US tag and left the NPS tag, which were both aimed at accomplishing the same thing. Any thoughts on how to resolve this would be appreciated. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that the monument was erected in 1891, wouldn't {{PD-US}} make more sense? Or am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I didn't think that PD-US could be used for a 3D work, only for images. If that's a mistaken assumption, I will use it. I presumed since the PD-US tag says "this image..." that it wasn't applicable. Cdtew (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I've never noticed that about the tag - the Commons version says "work". I believe old 3D works can use that tag, although of course they need a separate one for the photograph (as we have here). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I just made a {{PD-because}} tag that incorporates most of the PD-US language. Hopefully that is sufficient. Cdtew (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments The article assumes a level of knowledge that is appropriate for a military encyclopedia, but that may be too specialized for this one. As an example, the "Philadelphia campaign and Valley Forge" section...

• "Sumner resumed command of his regiment". I assume that's 3rd NCR from the previous para, but that states that he was colonel, not its commander. The reader has to guess that being a colonel meant being IC.

• Revised to reflect this in the lede and body; also clarified that "his regiment" = 3rd NC.

• "he then served under George Washington". Does that mean just Sumner, or Sumner with his regiment?

• Clarified

• "he remained encamped with the main army". What army was that?

• Clarified

• "Sumner saw action". I assume that means Sumner and his regiment fought, but it's another ambiguous statement.

• Clarified. Tried to use too many euphemisms, I guess.

• "the Continental Army". Getting more confused: is this different from "the main army"?

• Clarified as per the above comment.

• "was due the appointment of two additional brigadier generals". So the number of generals from each area was based on the number of men each area had contributed? Stating that, rather than implying it, would aid the reader.

• There was no set quota, just more or less a gentleman's understanding among the states. I've clarified it to more accurately reflect the source, which discusses North Carolina's own perception of what it deserved.

• "North Carolina brigade". It is "North Carolina Brigade" earlier.

• Corrected - there was no official title, per se, so it's really an identifier for a brigade, thus lower-case b.

• "Despite his efforts, in February 1778, North Carolina's regiments were consolidated". So they were merged because he didn't recruit enough men, rather than for some other reason?

• Clarified that it was due to a lack of soldiers, despite Sumner's attempts at recruiting.

Overall, I find considerable ambiguity in the writing, largely because of the assumptions made about the reader's knowledge of the topic. I suggest getting some people with limited knowledge of it to provide more feedback, so that the non-specialist reader will not be deterred. EddieHugh (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: Eddie, thank you for your comments; since this was my third or fourth article I've done on essentially the same subject matter, you may be right in that I might have become lazy in my attention to detail. Of course, a reader may not be reading these together as a set, and I will go through the article to address your concerns and to look for any other areas where foundational explanation is required. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have begun to work on your comments, Eddie. I will take a good long look at the article tonight and see if there are any areas that need explanation, but any further feedback from you would help. Above, I've placed my responses in italics under your comments; if you object to me doing this, please let me know and I will move them below this comment. Cdtew (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The positioning of your responses is ideal. I'll wait until you've gone through it, then comment again. Just post a reply here when you've done that and I'll look. (Incidentally, you need to get the infobox dob and dod (plus age) to match what's in the text.) EddieHugh (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: I've gone through and clarified the points you brought up, and sought to relieve some ambiguity that I thought remained. See my edits here, and feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do to make this article better! Cdtew (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Further comments as I go:

• "Continental Line" links to a railway in Sweden!

• Oops. That was supposed to be North Carolina Line.

• "one of five brigadier generals in the Continental Army from North Carolina" → 'one of five brigadier generals from North Carolina in the Continental Army' to be clearer?

• Done.

• "a large number of slaves". Main text has 35: was that a large number?

• I think I wrote "large" possibly before I had the source that said how many; removed and specified. To be fair, 35 would have been a large number for Sumner's region (central/western North Carolina was not worked intensively by slaves until the early-mid 19th century when cotton was attempted; that being said, there's no source that I can find that would say that specifically about Sumner's area.

• Early life. Maybe state that the forts were in Virginia.

• Fort Bedford is in PA, which I've noted. As for Fort Duquesne, with a link to both the Battle and the installation itself, I feel like stating its location would be overkill. If interested, a reader could find out more about that with a click. I have, however, made clear that he was serving in Pennsylvania.

• "both Virginia and North Carolina's colonial currency". Does "both" require 'Virginia's and North Carolina's'?

• Removed for clarity.

• "Early on". In what - as sheriff, officer, the war...?

• Removed as excess verbiage.

• "centered around". I've never been keen on this → 'centered on'?

• Sounds better to me.

• "six militia districts, including one centered around the town of Halifax, which district contained" → 'six militia districts, including one, centered around[/on] the town of Halifax, which contained'?

• Agreed. Your version is cleaner.

• "six month periods" → 'six-month periods'?

• Hyphen added.

• "the Provincial Congress at Halifax" seems to be the same as "Third North Carolina Provincial Congress", so not linking the former might make that clearer.

• Agreed, probably an Overlink.

• "under Lee's command in that general's absence". Clarify whether this was hypothetical, or whether Lee was away (if so, where?).

• Clarified per source.

• "stalled the selection of officers to assume those positions" → 'stalled the appointment of officers to those positions'?

• I suppose appointment is better.

• "the disastrous Siege of Savannah". Disastrous in what way?

• Another one where I don't want to go outside of summary style, and the "disastrous" comment is likely not NPOV, because it was quite the opposite for the British. I've just removed the adjective, and will let the reader click the link to find out more about the battle, since Sumner wasn't directly involved, and classified it as a "Patriot defeat".

• "the North Carolina Line was virtually annihilated". Clarify what "line" means, as this is its first appearance. Different from NC brigade?

• Explained some. Yes, different, but at times, not.

• "Between the Siege of Charleston in May 1780 and the Battle of Camden in August of that year". Was Sumner active/IC then?

• Records aren't complete (that I've been able to find), but it's clear he was in NC recruiting, and not in active command, as James Hogun was in command at Charleston, and no formal NC Continental Army unit was present at Camden - merely scraps were there.

• "A change in the political landscape". Too metaphorical. What happened?

• Clarified.

• "men like Caswell and Martin". "like" → "such as"?

• Clarified with the above.

• "Despite the passage of a draft law in North Carolina, his command fluctuated from day to day because of both temporary and permanent desertions". A lot is implied but not stated... "command" → "the number of men under his command"? "draft law" could mean a law about drafting men, or a law at the draft stage.

• Clarified both - not to be pedantic, but I think "draft" should be well understood in the American English usage; to clarify, I've just wikilinked it to Conscription.

• "the right flank of the Continental Army". "flank" first appears two sections earlier, so link there.

• Done.

• "On September 8, his regiments were [...] where his unit served". From regiments to unit?

• Units, plural.

• "was appointed commanding officer of Continental Army forces in North Carolina". Was this appointment up/down/sideways in importance?

• The sources don't indicate this. The responsibilities were in some ways greater (more territory and more men in theory), but in some ways less (no real fighting still going on, and far less men in actuality than on paper). I'm not very comfortable qualifying it in any way, and even what I've said is more assumption than something stated in the sources.

• "After the Continental Army's victory at the Siege of Yorktown, Sumner, who had once again fallen ill, failed to report to Greene for several months at a time." Expand. What was this siege? Was Sumner there? Failed to report what - anything/positions/status?

• Added a little explainer, but again, Sumner wasn't involved (and it now states that), and anyone can click the wikilink. Also, the reports were on anything, and the sources don't clarify, but I think it's probably well understood even by the layest of the lay that an officer has to report the status of his command to his commanding officer on a regular basis - it's a fairly common feature of pop culture depictions of military organizations.

• "Following the war". State when, for those not brought up on it.

• Done.

• "1783, serving as its" → '1783, and served as its'?

• Done.

• "much of which in the latter were"... improved a bit by "were" → "was".

• Done.

• "nearly destroying the stone structure and the general's remains". Maybe a verb is missing, but I don't see anything about destroying the remains in the source. EddieHugh (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I could have sworn that was in the source, but that may have been my own mind jumping to conclusions. Removed to conform to source.

@EddieHugh: I have gone through these points, replied, and made my changes here. Your assistance as an "outside perspective" is extremely valuable, and I can't thank you enough for the time you've put into this. Let me know if you see anything else that could use improvement. Cdtew (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Comments on the above... The 'hyphen' in "six-month" looks like a dash to me. "the North Carolina Line (a term that encompassed all of North Carolina's Continental Army units) was virtually annihilated": a term can't be annihilated (use 'which encompassed..'?). In conclusion, although I don't know enough about the topic to say that I support (although I know a lot more than I did before), once the two comments just made have been dealt with, all of my comments will have been addressed, so I will have no objections. EddieHugh (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: I've gone and made your suggested changes here. Many thanks again for all your help! Cdtew (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments -- Primarily a prose review, as ever pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything in my copyedit. Outstanding points:

• "Many of the North Carolina units' officers believed their state was due the appointment of two additional brigadier generals based on the number of soldiers it provided to the Continental Army." -- Um, this kinda pops out from nowhere for me. At first I thought "state" meant North Carolina but then I figured it meant "condition". If so, just what that condition was isn't immediately apparent to me.

• Clarified to "the" state, as it is referring the North Carolina.

• Whew, glad I asked...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• "At Valley Forge, the North Carolina brigade had a total present strength of 1,051, but 353 were ill, and 164 lacked sufficient clothes to be fit for service." -- Again this may be a US thing but "present strength" confuses me a bit; if you mean the total number of troops the brigade had at Valley Forge then I'd say "strength" by itself is the appropriate term.

• Agreed, and simplified to "strength".

• Not sure if it's different in AmEng but where I come from "disinterested" means "impartial". If (as I assume) you mean "lack of interest" then I'd say that.

• In American usage, "disinterested" does generally mean lacking interest; that being said, in American common law (and throughout American jurisprudence and statutes) it means the same as in Commonwealth English, so I should have been especially sensitive to that. Changed to reflect "lack of interest".

• "Despite being away from the rigors of camp life, he was left in an almost worse position, as a monetary crisis at the time rendered many officers in his position nearly unable to support themselves at home." -- Firstly, "almost" and "nearly" in the same sentence sounds a bit 'off' to me. Secondly, I'm not sure how being away from camp life would relate to his financial position anyway, unless it meant that he could earn money privately. At the very least, I'd suggest recasting the sentence along the lines of "He suffered financially during his recovery, as a monetary crisis at the time left many officers in his position barely able to support themselves at home."

• Done.

• "After the Continental Army's victory at the Siege of Yorktown (at which Sumner was not present), which effectively ended fighting between the British and Continental Armies, the general, who had once again fallen ill, failed to make any reports to Greene, who remained his commanding officer, for several months at a time." -- Very long sentence and, perhaps because of that, its precise significance eludes me...

• I've broken it down to clarify.

• Okay, sorry but it still sounds a bit clumsy to me. As a starting point, can we say "Sumner was not present at the Continental Army's victory at the Siege of Yorktown, which effectively ended fighting between the British and Continental Armies, and failed to make any reports to Greene for several months at a time; this was due in part to Sumner's recurring illness." Even so, I'm still not certain about what was affected by his illness -- his non-appearance at Yorktown and failure to make regular reports, or simply his failure to make reports. If the latter, the question is then why he wasn't at Yorktown (one can't be everywhere and mentioning it suggests he might have been expected to be at Yorktown but wasn't for some reason). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Got it. Yorktown plays no importance for him, as he was in command of North Carolina, and wouldn't have been expected to be at Yorktown. I've removed Yorktown to avoid confusion, and hope that this fix works. I may be too close to the trees to see the forest if not.

• Structure and depth of coverage seem okay to me; I'll go with Nikki's image check, and hope she'll be able to do a source review as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Thank you for the review; I believe I've addressed your concerns, so please let me know if anything is outstanding. Cdtew (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed we're now saying "Sumner disputed with..." instead of "Sumner engaged in a dispute with". I wasn't entirely happy with the previous expression but the current wording doesn't improve things for me. Perhaps we could say "Sumner became [or "was"] involved in a dispute with" or simply "Sumner disagreed with". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: The disputed change was Kevin's; I've now gone and made it a little better, I hope: Disagreed over which of the two was to command...

• Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose/structure -- As I've said earlier, happy to go with Nikki's image/source reviews; no reason at all to doubt comprehensiveness but can't claim expertise on the subject matter, certainly the article seems neutrally worded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Source for the infobox "years of service" range? The text supports him serving beginning 1758, not 1755
• FN28, 39: page formatting
• Rankin alphabetical range should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Thanks for having another look; I've now corrected these. The infobox was just a remnant from an earlier draft; I rechecked my sources and could only validate service to 1758. Cdtew (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. Nicely done, compares favorably to his entry in the Dictionary of American Biography. I'd recommend citing that work just to get the additional detail that his daughter married Thomas Blount, since we have so few details about his family. Two other comments:

1. I'd drop the clause "and would have done business in both states' colonial currency". This is obvious and trivial, and I say that as the guy who wrote the article that the clause links to. If you keep the clause, I'd remove "would have" from that and the previous clause; the conditional verb is unnecessary here and I stumbled on it.
2. The last paragraph of the "Early life" section is about the Revolution and probably ought to be the first paragraph of the next section.

Good work! —Kevin Myers 12:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Kevin Myers: Your kind words mean quite a lot, given your intimate knowledge of the time period and your vast body of work. I have made the changes you discussed, and added in the Dictionary of American Biography source/fact. Many thanks again for your review. Cdtew (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.