Talk:Henry Clinton (British Army officer, born 1730)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeHenry Clinton (British Army officer, born 1730) was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
October 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Year of birth[edit]

Both the ODNB, [1] and the Nottingham University webpage in external links give his year of birth as 1730, not 1738. The oDNB further states that his father obtained him a Lieutenant's commission in the New York militia in 1745 - even with his position as Governor, I think that a 7 year old is alittle young for that. Is there a source for the later date? David Underdown (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was possible to buy a commission for such a young boy in those days - he would not actually serve, but he would gain years of seniority. DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The original 1887 DNB article had his date of birth as "around 1738" - I think we are right in going with the current edition. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

London Gazette search hits[edit]

Search results for Henry Clinton from the London Gazette. David Underdown (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer Comments[edit]

You've made some progress during the past eight days, but there's still a lot to do to make this article into a GA-Class one. Here are some of my concerns:

  • The lead is still too short and doesn't summarise the article completely
  • A picture is still without a suitable caption
  • The Later Life section is still far too short and needs expansion
  • Legacy section stil only has one citation and needs one for each quotation
  • Still not enough citations in some sections, especially the latter part of Commander In Chief. See my previous comments for more details.
  • References either all need ISBN numbers or none should have them - several still have them.
  • References also need to be properly cited using the templates.

I think that's enough for now. There has been work done on the article, but I feel it may be better to fail the article and allow you to work on it, then re-nom it at a later time. Skinny87 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

His descendants familiar to Americans![edit]

Two of Henry Clinton descendants were actress Angela Baddeley and her sister Hermione Baddeley {Herminoe was married to a son of Edward Tennant, 1st Baron Glenconner and was a sister-in-law to Prime Minister H. H. Asquith} —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Member of Parliament[edit]

In "Later career" we find the phrase "he was re-elected to Parliament in 1790 for a riding in Launceston." - now, we do not have ridings in this sense in Britain (I believe it is a Canadian term). Launceston had two associated constituencies, Launceston (UK Parliament constituency) and Newport (Cornwall) (UK Parliament constituency) - I suspect the former is intended, but this does need to be checked. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems to have been Launceston (UK Parliament constituency), I will amend the article accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Place of death[edit]

I have amended the place of death from Gibraltar to Portland Place, per the ODNB article. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth[edit]

I suspect that Clinton was born in England - his father did not become Governor of Newfoundland until 1731 (the year after our subject's birth), and the ODNB article does not give a place of birth (the 1887 article gives Newfoundland, but this has him born about 1738). DuncanHill (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Bold text

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry Clinton (1730–1795)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead should be longer - two solid paragraphs is sufficient for an article of this length. Try to summarize the entire article in the lead.
    • Please try to combine or expand short paragraphs - especially those of only one or two sentences.
    • Try to avoid the use of paranthetical insertions. Either explain the information in normal prose or take it out. You don't have to remove all of them, but there are rather a lot in the article.
    • Prose issues:
    • Early life section, "(although it was 1743 before he actually got there)". Either explain this or take it out, don't leave the reader guessing. FIXED Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Early life section, "When he was old enough, Henry Clinton spent time in the New York militia." Vague... What is "old enough"? How much time? FIXED
    • Commander in chief section, "it had gained control of the hinterland". The what? Please reword to make more obvious and less POV. FIXED
    • Commander in chief section, "British commanders almost aimed at mobilising..." They did what? How do you almost aim?
    • Commander in chief section, third paragraph, "in this strategy". What strategy are you talking about here? Please reword to make more obvious.
    • Legacy section, "he lived retired with very poor staff work" This reads oddly to me - I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Please reword for clarity. FIXED
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • References needed:
    • The third paragraph of the American Revolutionary War section.
    • The last two paragraphs of the Commander in Chief section
    • The last paragraph of the Later career section
    • All web references need publishers and access dates, and links should have titles, rather than being left as bare links. FIXED
    • Not fixed. Refs 13 and 14 need access dates, ref 15 needs a publisher (fully spell out the acronym, please), and the web refs should all be formatted the same way. The title of the web site should be the link, not the access date, and web references are usually formatted author (if available), title (with url link), publisher, access date.
    • Books need ISBN numbers FIXED, for all books with them
    • Books need page numbers
    • The Hyma and Mackesy books need publishers.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • Please check for POV wording. I have removed some, but some still remains. For example, the "hinterland" wording that I commented on above in the prose section, as well as "stunning and serious defeat" in the COC section (maybe not POV, but definitely wordy, could probably just be "serious defeat"). Other wording like this appears throughout the article.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

This article has quite a few problems with prose and referencing, but most of them are minor, so I am going to put this article on hold to allow time to address my concerns. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Queries about the review[edit]

Re: "Commander in chief section, "it had gained control of the hinterland". The what? Please reword to make more obvious and less POV" Hinterland is the region lying inland of a port or centre of influence, seems perfectly clear to me. I am not sure how this sentence is POV. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a mistake on my part. I somehow didn't realize that the term was wikilinked and was being used in the sense that it was meant to be used, rather than a bastardized meaning of "out in the middle of no-where". Sorry about this, I'll strike the comment above.
I've updated everything above, with a couple of new comments, as well as striking what's been done. In the future, please leave issues for me to strike, as I use the bullet points as sort of a check list to see what's been done and what hasn't, and then strike issues off as I see them completed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you still working on the items above? There are still quite a few issues that need to be addressed before this article can make GA, and the article has been on hold for over a week, with very little action by the editors on the concerns I've outlined. If you could let me know if you are still aiming for GA, that would be great! Dana boomer (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There is not all that much work that needs to be done before the article can gain GA status, but I have not gotten any response from the editors after my post above, and no new work has been completed on the article. I would highly recommend that this work be completed and this article resubmitted to GAN, as it is very close to GA status. If you wish, drop me a note when you do this and I will be happy to place the article at the top of my list of articles to review. Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson[edit]

Nelson was on the way back to England from India in 1776. It's unlikely that he involved in the attack on Fort Sullivan, which happened in America. I've therefore removed the entry. --Clithering (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Title of this article[edit]

Who else thinks that the title of this article is atrocious? Might I suggest "Henry Clinton (British soldier)" or "Henry Clinton (British commander)" or some-such. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

He's not the only Henry Clinton to have been a British soldier. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
They were not a very imaginative lot when it came to names see William Henry Clinton the other son and brother. -- PBS (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit unwieldly, but its probably the best way of disambiguating by linking him to the event by which he is best known. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this article and noticed this same problem. While I don't support removing the parenthetical, it is excessively long. Considering that, shouldn't we rename the many "Henry Clinton" articles with something shorter? I will make a new section below, since it has been six years. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Seven Years War[edit]

I have made adjustments to this element based on the Unit History and the Army Rolls of the period. The unit history shows that his unit, 2nd Battalion, 1st Foot Guards deployed in July 1760 which is why he wasn't in Germany before. There is no involvement of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Foot Guards (or any of that Regiment) at the Battles of Corpach (which was before they arrived) and Kloster Kampen. The same unit history is quite specific about where Clinton was wounded and it was not the battle of Freiberg. The campaign history of the Seven Years War suggests that Prince Ferdinand was no where near the Battle of Freiberg and it was fought by the Prussian Army. The date of his promotion is in the Army Rolls but he was still held to Establishment of 1st Foot Guards in 1763. The units of the Regiment returned via Holland in January 1763 but it is not stated whether Clinton was with them but it seems unlikely.

He purchased Colonel in Chief (which is not command) of the 12th Regiment of Foot (the Suffolk Regiment) on 28 November 1766 but this is not chronologically in sequence and beyond the Seven Years War. The unit was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel William Picton. The discussion regarding friendships is not my expertise and I have left it. I hope this helps clarify this part of his history. Family locator (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential title move[edit]

Its been several years since the discussion, but what are everyone's thoughts about moving this page, as well as the pages for the other "Henry Clintons" to shorter, less cumbersome titles? Thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Both the men who would otherwise have their biographies at Henry Clinton were British Army officers, so including "British Army officer" in their disambiguations seems pointless to me, since it all it does it result in a five-word disambiguation where the first four words are identical. It's also arguably a violation of WP:PARENDIS, which mandates that article title disambiguation should have "only as much additional detail as necessary". So I would advocate at least dropping that, in favour of Henry Clinton (born 1730) and Henry Clinton (born 1771), though personally I think Henry Clinton (1730–1795) and Henry Clinton (1771–1829) would be much better and is more encyclopaedic. But the titles I think would be best, and would be most useful to our readers, would be Henry Clinton (American Revolutionary War) and Henry Clinton (Napoleonic Wars), since I think there are far more people who, when typing "Henry Clinton" into the search box and seeing their list of options drop down, would be able to tell instantly which general they're looking for from that general's most notable war than from sets of dates that are rather close together. Binabik80 (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Trouble with that is that they were British and we call the contretemps in North America the American War of Independence, not the American Revolutionary War. DuncanHill (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know what we call the American Revolutionary War, but luckily Wikipedia has a mechanism to overcome exactly this sort of problem. An argument could be made for either term in his disambiguation, since he was indeed British but is notable for an overwhelmingly American topic. I mean, I would be very surprised if British page views of both Sir Henry Clintons combined add up to the same number as American page views of this Sir Henry Clinton alone. (He is, for instance, currently a recurring character on an American network television programme, though other characters have repeatedly referred to him as "Sir Clinton".) I'd prefer "American Revolutionary War" as the main title, but that's because I've always preferred that as being much more natural English than "American War of Independence"; I wouldn't object to it going the other way. Or there's always the inferior option of the birth and death dates. Binabik80 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This article was at Henry Clinton (American War of Independence) for a very long time; it was moved, apparently without discussion, in November 2015. I further note that "born 1730" is IMHO a misstatement, because his exact year of birth is not currently known with precision (see article's first non-lede paragraph). Magic♪piano 22:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Clinton (British Army officer, born 1730). 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)