Talk:Frederick Stovin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFrederick Stovin 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.
Article milestones
January 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 21, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Sir Frederick Stovin was removed from command of the 92nd Gordon Highlanders in 1821, after scandalising the regiment by demanding they wear trousers?
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Additional information...
Associated task forces (general topics):
Crystal personal.svg
Military biography task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
Arms of the United Kingdom (since 1837).svg
British military history task force
Europe satellite globe.jpg
European military history task force


Stovin's being in the Ionians with the 28th is cited to the ODNB, but the article doesn't seem to mention it, only him being there with the 90th from 1821, and also says that the rebellion was while he was in command of the 90th, not when he was a major with the 28th. Should the ref be to Johnston instead, or had the sequence just got muddled? David Underdown (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think muddled - this is one of the cases where the DNB itself gets a bit confused. (He suppressed a rebellion when present with the 28th; his tenure with the 90th was pretty placid). I'll recheck the footnotes. Shimgray | talk | 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and fixed. Johnston is quite clear that he put down a rebellion when there with the 28th in 1819/1820, and that - apart from disarming the islands, which was done completely peacefully in 1822 - the 90th didn't have much actively happen. I think this is the ODNBs error - there's a brief summary of the incident here, which corroborates Johnston.
On the theme of things missing from the ODNB, did you turn up a Gazette reference to him as brigadier-general? I couldn't find a reference to this anywhere, and it seems a bit odd to skip a step completely. Shimgray | talk | 13:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brigadier was not a permanent rank in this period, most people went straight from colonel to major-general. Brigadier was a temporary appointment given to field officers when brigades were needed, and no generals on the station. Much like the usage of commodore in the RN which was given when a captain was needed to command a squadron of ships. There seem to be a few errors of date in the ODNB article (it's mostly a lightly edited version of the original DNB article), sources are given as the Gentleman's Magazine, so the original error was probably theirs-it's now much esier to go back to the original Gazettes. David Underdown (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frederick Stovin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteriaReply[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Can you find a picture? Even a fair-use one would be acceptable.
    Bit of a problem, this one. I have identified one portrait of Stovin - a print held by the National Portrait Gallery - and that hasn't been digitised. The ODNB contains no picture (and doesn't even mention the NPG one, unusually); the Imperial War Museum collection doesn't have anything. It's possible the regimental museum of the Royal Ulster Rifles might have a portrait in a cupboard somewhere, but that's a bit more effort than I can practically go to!
    We could use something purely decorative, I suppose, but we'd definitely want free content for that; I didn't see any decent pictures of the associated regiments (there's one of a junior officer of the 52nd, which would work, but it's very low-quality), but perhaps something like this for one of the associated honours? Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nothing on Google Image? Unlikely I admit, but definitely worth trying. I'm not much interested in an image of one of his honours; I'd prefer the man or nothing at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nothing I could see. I agree with you that the tangential images don't help much; I'd be just about happy with a picture of his home or something, but that doesn't seem to have been anywhere too interesting. Shimgray | talk | 11:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: