Talk:Siege of Fort Stanwix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Siege of Fort Stanwix 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.
Good topic star Siege of Fort Stanwix is part of the Saratoga campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 1, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
March 6, 2010 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

Copyright problem[edit]

This article appears to be copied and pasted from myrevolutionarywar.com. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

People should be more careful about throwing around copyright violations. MyRevolutionaryWar.com is a known Wikipedia mirror. Magic♪piano 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Fort Stanwix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will do the GA Review on this article. H1nkles (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|


|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:Article meets all GA Criteria and will pass.|Article meets all GA Criteria and will pass.|}}


Lead & Background[edit]

These two sections are both fine, well-written and cover their subjects.

Forces assemble[edit]

Could any more be said about the supply force from the Massachusets Regiments? This seems like a missing piece of information. Who ordered the expedition? what did they bring? Nothing too detailed but a little more here would be good. H1nkles (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the supply train was sent by Schuyler, but I'll have to check. I'm not sure the sources I've seen identify with any detail the supplies. (I do know the garrison was short of ammo during the siege, so there probably wasn't enough of that...)

The siege begins and Oriskany[edit]

Both sections are fine, I did some minor copy editing but otherwise I see no problem with the body of the text. H1nkles (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Siege relief, Aftermath, and Legacy[edit]

These sections are fine, cogent, to the point and well-written. I can't think of much I would add that would improve them. I did a minor punctuation edit but otherwise they are fine.

Ebenezer Learned's command is incorrectly identified in the article as the "4th Massachusetts Regiment." Learned was appointed a brigadier general in the Continental Army on April 2, 1777 (Heitman, "Historical Register," p. 10). His command was the 4th Massachusetts BRIGADE, consisting of the 2d Massachusetts Regiment (Colonel John Bailey), 8th Massachusetts Regiment (Colonel Michael Jackson), and 9th Massachusetts Regiment (Colonel James Wesson) (idem., p. 11). For this reason, Wesson's 9th Massachusetts Regiment is credited with "Mohawk Valley" in the lineage section of Wright's "The Continental Army." (Wright consistently gives conflicting information for different regiments in the same brigade. This is one example of many. Here he credits the 9th regiment but omits the 2d and 8th).

The Fourth Massachusetts Regiment was never commanded by Ebenezer Learned. Its commanders were Colonel William Shepard, January 1, 1777 to January 1, 1783; and Colonel Henry Jackson from January 1 to November 3, 1783 (Heitman, p. 37).

The Fourth Massachusetts Brigade was commanded by Learned, as he was fourth in seniority of the brigadier generals appointed from Massachusetts who served during this period of the war. The Massachusetts brigadiers, in the order named, were:

Brigadier General John Nixon: August 9, 1776.

Brigadier General John Glover: February 21, 1777.

Brigadier General John Paterson: February 21, 1777.

Brigadier General Ebenezer Learned: April 2, 1777.

Notes[edit]

Your notes formatting is a little odd, wikilinking the notes to the references doesn't seem to add much. When one clicks on the link the page just jumps to the bottom. It's nothing that violates the MOS or anything I'm just not sure what wikilinking each author's name in the notes truly accomplishes. Overall your references appear credible and well formatted, I don't have access to the books that are off-line so they are taken in good faith.

I've not received any significant comment on the wikilinked split format before (more than a dozen GAs and 2+ FAs).
Understandable, I've seen many different ways to format the notes/references, as long as it conveys the information then I'm fine with it. H1nkles (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Your images are fine, the only problem I see is the odd placement of some of the images. Per WP:ACCESS the images shouldn't spill over from one section to the next. The exception of course is in small section, which this article has. Still I count three images that straddle two sections, could these be placed better so as to avoid this?

I'm not the best with image placement. I should probably move the gansevoort image...

Overall comments[edit]

The article is very close, really just a little bit more about the supply convoy in the "Forces assemble" section (to satisfy comprehensive requirement) and some better placement of the photos and the article will pass. I'll hold it for a week. Good job overall on the article. H1nkles (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments. I'll get on it over the next few days. Magic♪piano 15:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if the changes I've made don't adequately address your issues. Magic♪piano 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are fine, the images look better, and seem more organized. I will pass the article with pleasure. H1nkles (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)