Jump to content

Talk:Louis H. Carpenter/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am currently undertaking a review of this article for GA status. I will add comments as I go. Please feel free to comment on my comments for clarification or if you think you have addressed any points I've raised. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • I think the lead needs to be reworded. The first sentence does not get at the heart of the subject's notability, which is that he is a Medal of Honor recipient and of flag rank. I suggest maybe something like this: "Louis Henry Carpenter (February 11, 1839 - January 21, 1916) was a United States Army brigadier general and Medal of Honor recipient. He began his military career in 1861 first as an enlisted soldier before being commissioned as an officer the following year. During the American Civil War..."  Done
  • There are some grammatical errors, but only minor. An instance is in the lead, in the third sentence where you have "After the Civil War he battles..." I think that should be he "fought against". Also there is a capitalisation issue in the same paragraph, 'Country' should not be capitalised as it is an irregular noun, the same goes for ranks. The rule of thumb for ranks is that where they are being used as a title they are capitalised, where they are not being used as a title they are not capitalised. For instance "Brigadier General Carpenter, or Carpenter was a brigadier general". Another is in the Battle of Fairfield section, where you discuss Platt and use "was" twice in the same sentence. (Please re-read the whole article and do a quick copy edit for grammar).  Done
  • Wikilink Army of the Potomac in the Military Service/Civil War section  Done
  • There is inconsistency in how you treat "regular army", sometimes you capitalise, sometimes you don't. I think it should be capitalised.  Done
  • In the section on the Battle of Fairfield, Carpenters role should be what you focus upon, rather than the battle itself (although this is needed for context). I think you could fix this by starting the sections with Carpenter's role, you a sentence like "Carpenter's next action came during..." A number of the sections have this problem.  Done
  • You use Carpenter's rank a lot. There is no need to do this as it is not a military report. I would simply refer to him as Carpenter.  Done
  • The Indian campaigns in Kansas and Colorado, Sep-Oct 1868 appear to be a large block quote. I feel that this should be rewritten in own words. There is no need to tell the story in someone else's words .  Done
  • There is some inconsistency in your date format, sometimes use "6th July" other times use 6 July (for example). Per the WP:MOS, the use of "th" after a date is not preferred.  Done except unit historic unit designations.
  • Dashes need to be consistent with WP:DASH, e.g endashes for year and page ranges, emdashes instead of hyphens in text.  Done Thanks for the check of endashes & emdashes conflict Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Further reading section should be formatted per the {{cite book}} template;  Done
  • In the references/notes there are a numbe of bare urls (i.e. http://....), I suggest embedding these in their titles, as the long string of code takes the eye off the important information that you want the reader to look at. Done
  • In the infobox, there seems to be some issue with the bullet points for Battles/wars, in that they are showing up as non-coded * instead of bullet points. (I've had trouble with this myself before, sometimes I can't work out how to fix it. It seems the mark up is a bit temperamental;  Done
  • In Footnote 7 you provide the bare url to a wikipedia article of brevets, this should be embedded with the normal wikilink, e.g. [[Brevet (military)]]  Done
  • I suggest making a Citations and References section separate of each other. In the citations section you can include the bare details (e.g. Smith 1992, p. 1) and in the References section include the full bibliographic details. This means that the citations section is not so cluttered with repeating information. For an example, see Arthur Henry Cobby, which is a Featured Article (which I didn't work on) so it should give an example of a good format to use.  Not done
  • Some of the footnotes are very long and seem like block quotes, is there really a need for this?
Some of these were once part of the article to explain older words and actions. They were moved to footnotes when they were determined to be not immediately needed for their section of the article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, then. I'm happy with that. (I've struck the comment, as I feel you've explained it). Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • Any references that are the same (e.g same source, same page) should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS  Done
  • There are still some paragraphs without a citation at all (B class requires at least one per paragraph, more for large paragraphs or those with multiple contestable points. For an example of paragraphs without citations, see Civil War section (last two paragraphs), and last paragraph in Battle of Fairfield section  Done
  • External links work according to the link checker (good work, no action required)
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • The article broadly covers the topic, but as mentioned above in some cases I do not believe that it is focused enough. In some sections (particularly early military career) the focus is more on the battle, rather than the subject's role in the battle. Thus I feel it could be improve if these sections were reworded to put the focus more on Carpenter's role.  Done
  • Over all I think the article is neutral in its point of view, although there doesn't seem to be any criticism of the subject (but there doesn't need to be). However, there is some use of words like 'tragic' e.g. in Battle of Fairfield section, these need to be re-worded as they give the notion of a non neutral point of view;  Done
  • Use of large block quotes (in Battle of Fairfield and Indian campaigns section) creates some point of view issues as some of the wording used has a slight bias to the subject. If these were re-written in own words, it could be removed.  Done  Not done Mostly redone, but a quote left. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • This is still be worked on, but from what I can see most of the work has been done by a couple of editors. There do not appear to be any edit wars going on (no action required).
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
  • There are four couple of non-free content images, I think you need to limit the amount of non free images on the page. Given that you have one in the infobox, I'd suggest not using the second one (the painting), unless PD tags can be added. Unfortunately I'm not a copyright guru, but perhaps you can check the US PD templates a bit more to see if these images are in fact PD as they were published a while ago.
  • The non-free images need to have formal fair use rationales included on their description pages. This needs to say why using them in the article is fair use and why a free or public domain image is not available.
  • The insignia images are fine (PD), as are a couple of the other images in the Indian campaigns and continued service sections (no action required)
  • The images are all tagged and captioned (no action required)
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I have completed the first review of the article and believe that there is still a bit of work to be done to bring it up to a GA standard. However, I believe that it is possible for this to be achieved, so I will leave it on hold for a week or so while the issues are addressed. Good work so far, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second look: I think that this article is almost there. I have made a few minor adjustments myself to address a couple of the minor concerns not yet touched upon (please review what I have done, if you feel it needs to be changed, please let me know). However, I believe that you have largely fixed most of what I mentioned above and I feel that there are just a couple more tweaks to be done and then I believe it will be a GA. I believe that all that remains are the following:

  • References: there were still a couple of paragraphs that needed citations, I have added the citation needed tags where they are needed to meet the criteria that each paragraph have a citation. Please add them there and then it will be good to go in this regard;  Done
  • Consolidate refs: you have most of them, but I think there are two to go (numbers 11 & 18 appear to be the same; Different pages referenced. One on the 10th & the other on LHC. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also 13 & 14 - although the last two might be a different page, if so please add the specific page number);  Done Same page reference.

  • Prose: I have only one more concern. In the Civil War section at the start of the Military service section, the paragraph beginning 'Cavalry in the American Civil War' is a bit clumsy and needs to be reworded. I think the focus of the paragraph is that promotion in the cavalry was based on merit (the implication being that Carpenter's commission which you touch upon in the following sentence, was well deserved), however, the addition of the sentences afterwards talking about "horse soldiers" sort of takes the focus off the important part of the paragraph. I'd suggest removing the horse soldiers sentences and either putting it in somewhere else or ditching it although. Also the term "difficult logistics" seems a bit strange, perhaps it could be reworded also.  Done
  • Images: I think the image status needs to be clarified. I have had a look around at the copyright stuff but to be honest it is very confusing. I will keep looking, though. Is there a way that their fair use claim can be made more concrete, e.g. add a rationale for their use in the "replaceable ?" section on the description page?
Having looked some more, I think that the golden year in US copyright law is 1923 and as all the fair use images were first published before then (1898 and 1912) then I think you could make a very compelling PD claim. For the painting reproduction I'd suggest using {{PD-art-US}}, while for the other three photos maybe {{PD-US}} would be sufficient. Of course, I could be wrong on this. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Anyway, that sorry to add more, but I feel that it is nearly there. If you can address these last four points, I will be happy with the article and will promote to GA. Good work addressing my points. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Burningview. Sorry I missed this. To be honest, I thought it was a FA requirement, but we may as well fix it now. Okay, using the Featured article tool it seems to indicate that the images that lack alt text are: (Please put done beside them when they are done, I will try to help out also and once they are done, everything should be good to go for GA).

(1) The painting; Done
(2) The Cav branch insignia; Done
(3) Buffalo soldiers monument; Done
(4) Fort Davis drill ground; Done
(5) All the rank insignia  Not done (I have marked with the "link" function as they do not use the thumbnail syntax and I believe are decorative, so do not need alt text)
(6) The public domain text icon in the references — I wouldn't worry about this one to be honest, surely alt text is not necessary for that. It doesn't seem possible anway is it is a template, not an image.  Not done — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_H._Carpenter/GA1&oldid=312461253"