Talk:11th New York Infantry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 11th New York Infantry has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.


Very nice! Scromett (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Article on Bull Run[edit]

You have that the 14th Brooklyn and other regiments charged four times, but in fact they did take the guns on a few occasions, well at least I know that the 14th Did so. I believe the 11th Did as well... just a thought. But all and all VERY nice article!

Frank Ruiz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the details[edit]

As an FYI to readers, I have found multiple spellings of Col. Charles Loeser's name, both as Loeser and as Looser. I have also read conflicting reports regarding the fate of Col. Farnham. I have one fairly reliable source which states he was killed at Bull Run and others which state he was simply wounded. I am working to determine which is accurate. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it appears I have confirmed the spelling as Loeser and Farnham was wounded at Bull Run and died several months later from typhoid. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

A nicely written article, with a few comments below. Once I'm satisified by the responces I'll be happy to pass this piece. Not all the comments are necessary for the article to pass but all are ways in which the article could improve. Hopefully this won't take too long. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  •  Done "Most 90-day regiments called up were in fact to complete 90 days of Federal service and two years of service to the state" please make it clear whether the 11th was one of these regiments.
  •  Done Please give a link or some background to "Chicago's National Guard Cadets" when they are mentioned. I had no idea what they were and it made the next sentance very confusing until I realised that they were a drill team (which is still a slightly vague description).
    Reply:I think stating that they are a drill team a mere three words after mention should not be confusing. I would appreciate another editor's perspective.
I clearly didn't explain this at all well, but the problem I have here is that I have never heard of "Chicago's National Guard Cadets" and I don't know what the term "drill team" means, so I had no idea what relevance this had to his military career. All that is needed to fix this problem is linking the term drill team.
  •  Done "for whom the unit performed hundreds of flashy movements with their muskets and bayonets" is an inelegant phrase, please change it to slightly more enycylopedic language.
Unless "hundreds of flashy movements" is a technical term, this is still inelegant.
  •  Done "Given that the Union and Confederate units were uncertain of the other's identity, they hesitated in opening up their lines. This confusion resulted from the fact that the 33rd Virginia was dressed in dark blue frock coats and dark blue trowsers. Both sides soon opened fire, and the Union regiments supporting the cannon fell back to the Manassas-Sudley Road." is poorly phrased and needs polishing.
When you wrote "opening up their lines" did you mean "opening fire"?
  • "where they distinguished themselves for their foul conduct." what on earth does this mean? Did they throw faeces? Pull rude faces? Some more explanation please.
What foul conduct, and why did it distinguish them?

*"As the 11th New York Regiment had learned, the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861 took a heavy toll on Union forces, including those from New York City." needs rephrasing.

  •  Done who is "the governor" mentioned? Link to him please.
  • I'm suprised that Henry O'Brien doesn't have his own article, it interesting that a relatively senior officer was beaten to death on the streets of New York. I'd be interested to find out more.
    Reply:Not sure why it relates to this GA nom.
It doesn't, but you could still red link to him for when the article is created. Not essential to the nomination.
  • Francis E. Brownell should have his own article.
    Reply:Not sure why it relates to this GA nom.
As with above. This is not essential to the nomination.
I took a crack at starting a page. -Daysleeper47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daysleeper47 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done.
  1. Are there any memorials or monuments to the regiment today? Does any unit maintain the regiment's traditions and battle honours?
Not yet addressed.
  •  Done Ref. 25 is incorrectly formatted.
  • Some of your sources are personal websites which are discouraged on Wikipedia. Do you have any comment on their reliability?.
    Reply:The sources seem to be authoritative and I have found little to no inaccuracy from the printed books I have read on this subject, which I have used as over half of my sources (primarily Murray).
Fair enough, but be aware that should you take this to FA, all personal websites will have to be removed.

In general, I find these comments superficial and not an adequate rationale for a hold. Aside from the one comment regarding the reference, they appear to be more related to an editor's preferred style or are unrelated to the article (which is entirely inappropriate as rationale for a hold, pass or fail). I have made several of the suggested edits, but would appreciate other editor's feedback as well. Until then, I ask that this hold remain or be lifted, but the GA nom should not be dropped for this reason. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the comments I have made then by all means go to to WP:GAR. My standards may be exacting, but that is my review style. I am not going to fail the article, you are clearly seeking to improve it and it should be there within a short space of time. I put this article on hold because I was concerned that it wasn't quite up to standard on Wikipedia:Good article criteria 1(a) because of the writing issues I highlighted above. I also had minor concerns about other things which I also listed, but nothing I saw was an essential fault. What I really wanted was a response to each point regarding their correction or appropriateness. The GA nom will not be dropped, but the hold remains until the above points are addressed either in the article or here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Although I would happily have granted extra time, the edits made today are enough in my opinion to push this over the GA standard. It is a nice article and well written with several good sources. Please be aware for future reference that all personal websites must be removed should you try to take this to FA (its a good idea to replace them with something else at GA anyway). Its also worth addressing the remaining point above about memorials or monuments at some point in the future. Well done, a nicely written and impressive article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - a very nicely done article! There are so many regimental articles that are stubs and mere shells, so this is refreshing. Well researched, factually correct as far I as could tell, and information, as a good article should be. Removing the personal websites is strongly encouraged for FA status, unless the website is from a known authority who has published other works on the subject (and even then, it's best to quote the secondary works). Nicely done, and I support taking this forward to the next level of review. Scott Mingus (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 11th New York Infantry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)