Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3

Brooks–Baxter War

Nominator(s): The_stuart (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3

Third times a charm! I've made all the changes that other editors suggested in the previous round of FAC, if there are any other suggestions I will make those corrections as well. Please be specific. --The_stuart (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1c, 2c Jargon reduced at 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) the first comment and translation are in relation to the original terse language Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2c

Please cite this so other people can locate what you're talking about. Publication place, Author, Page number, Title of Work within the ?Newspaper? ^ Van Buren Press. February 18, 1868.

Remove excess dot. Moneyhon, Carl H..

Few english language publications begin lower case. ^ Green, Nicholas (1876). here Criminal Law Reports. Cambridge, England: Hurd and Houghton. pp. 434-439. Retrieved July 14, 2009.

This error occurs in your |url= tag, "url=http://books.google.com/books?id=t-xGAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA434&dq=%22Thomas+Boles%22+%22John+Edwards%22+arkansas&lr=&ei=H28tSv-hCoy4NIaakfsG#PPA434,M1 here" Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Few english language publications begin lower case. ^ a b Foster, Roger (1895). here Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston, Massachusetts: Boston Book Company. pp. 685-688. Retrieved October 6, 2009.

Please space this reference correctly? ^ Elisha Baxter:Reconstruction Unravels. Old State House Museum. Retrieved October 6, 2009.

Please capitalise this reference correctly, or confirm that the title is listed lower case on the article title? ^ a b c d e f g "the Brooks-Baxter War". History of a Landmark. the Arkansas Times. 1998. Retrieved September 15, 2008.

Appropriately cite the journal article, possibly by gracing us with the Title of the journal article, its page references, in the journal as printed, instead of relying on a link, "^ Meriwether, Robert W. (Fall and Winter, 1995). Faulkner Facts and Fiddlings (Volume XXXVII, Nos. 3-4 ed.). Faulkner County Historical Society. Retrieved October 11, 2009."

Could you grace us with a date, and standardized publisher citation style: ^ "Correspondence, Assistant Justice". The American annual cyclopedia and register of important events (D. Appleton & Co.) 14: 43.

Your link even says the date: D. Appleton and Company, 1875

Appropriately citing the Old State House Museum. These are online exhibits, not standard published works.

No, just, no: Please provide a citation that contains an Author, a Publisher, a Year, preferably the Location Published, and other indicators of what type of work it is and where it came from (if a Journal, the Journal's title) ^ a b Elisha Baxter: Reconstruction Unravels, accessed May 16, 2008

Most cites end with a full stop, some short cites do. Consider all short cites to end in full stops to match the longer cites and bibliography.

In what publication was this reference published? If this is the name of the publication, what is the name of the section of the edited collection you're quoting? ^ Wilson, James Grant and Fiske, John, ed (1888). John Thomas Newton. D Appleton Co.. pp. 509.

Bibliography, Various what... really, is that the title of the article you're relying on "Various Articles" from above and here you only rely on one page?: Wilson, James Grant and Fiske, John, ed (1888). "Various Articles". Appleton's cyclopædia of American biography (D Appleton Co.): 509.

1c

No article indicated, no indication if article written as by an expert, unsigned tertiary. Encyclopedias are not reliable sources unless they meet a stringent criteria. It must be written by academics, for an academic public, and the article in question must have the "by line" or be "signed" by an academic specialist. You don't give us enough to go on here. Name the article, and the author of the specific article.: ^ a b c d e f g h Zuczek, Richard (2006). Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era. Westport: Greenwood Press. p. 103-104. ISBN 0313330735.

OR from Primaries and speculation. You have conducted Original Research by synthesising Primary Sources here. This is the correct work of a historian; not Wikipedia. Find this in a secondary source. Your text also contains speculation, "On November 6, 1872, the day after the general election, the Gazette reported: "The election was one of the most quiet in Little Rock we ever witnessed.[14] The returns on that day were too small to report with any certainty who had won, and the newspaper reported fraud. Rumors flew about claims that registration had been cut short or extended in many counties to suit the needs of whoever controlled the polling places. The following Monday, the Gazette published incomplete tallies from the various counties showing a small majority for Baxter. They also reported more forms of attempted fraud. Some unofficial polling places had apparently been set up, but only those votes cast at the regular polls had been certified.[15]"

Use of an unsigned tertiary from the 19th century to support (Again, you've used a non reliable source encyclopedia. Its more questionable because its from the 19th century and is not academically titled (unlike your one above): On the May 19, General Newton and his troops reoccupied the State House grounds, which had just been evacuated by Brooks; forces, and on the 20th he reinstated Governor Baxter.[26]

This sounds like a bunch of rambling. I don't know how I'm supposed to get anything approaching constructive criticism from this. --The_stuart (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not rambling, but it is very concisely expressed, to the point where it might not immediately be clear what Fifelfoo is saying. Shall I try and translate? (I don't speak fluent Fifelfoo, but I can get by in the language, I think...)

Decline 1c 2c = I, Fifelfoo, use "decline" not "oppose", since I don't oppose any articles making FAC diff. However, in my opinion, the article currently fails Featured article criteria 1c and 2c, namely "well-researched" and "consistent citations". Let me give you the instances in which I think that the citations are inconsistent (criterion 2c):

• Your reference 3 is "Van Buren Press. February 18, 1868." This is not a full citation, because it lacks the following information: Publication place, Author, Page number, Title of Work within the Newspaper (if it is a newspaper). Please add these to the citation.

These old newspapers don't have authors or titles and they are basically two pages front and back, so that is all there is. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your reference 5 has "Moneyhon, Carl H.." It has two dots, but should only have one. [Translator's note: the explanation was that your citation template automatically adds a "." after the author's name, which makes the manually-added "." after his initial redundant]. Please remove one. [Translator's note: This has been done, as part of an edit in which I fixed some hyphen/dash problems]

So it's fixed. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your references 8 and 9 both begin with the word "here" in lower case, e.g. "here Criminal Law Reports". Are you sure this is correct, since few English language publications begin with a letter in lower case? Should it just be "Criminal Law Report"? Please check and amend if necessary.

I can't figure this one out, when I view the reference view it doesn't have the "here".--130.184.211.7 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Etc...

Does this help? Bencherlite^Talk 13:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: My sympathies are with the nominator here. I acknowledge that Fifelfoo does useful work in the areas of sources and citation formatting, but his/her use of quaint or cryptic language can be a mite confusing, not to mention irritating. Bringing an article to FAC can be stressful enough for nominators, without their having to crack a code to understand a reviewer's comments. Please, Fiflefoo, bear this in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having the same problem :) Might I suggest that Fifelfoo moves all of the preceding commentary (including this one of mine) to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3, and then we start over here? A long list of hard-to-follow issues can be very off-putting to not only the nominator, but other reviewers as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• An alternate suggestion. While I may hold up promotion until MOS and citation formatting issues are resolved, I have never denied promotion over these issues. An alternate is that Fifeloo simply indicates here that there are 2c concerns, and then places that list on article talk, where those issues can be resolved without the lengthy discussion here. That's what I often do. What ever you decide, Fifelfoo, please feel free to move all of this commentary, keeping 1c (which is policy, not guideline) here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)