Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Monmouth
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Battle of Monmouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article has undergone significant expansion recently, using a relatively recent, scholarly source that focuses on the subject. I hope to put this up for FAC if the article passes ACR. I have done my best to review the images and add appropriate copyright tags supported by sources where necessary; I hope that I have done enough there to pass muster. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Sirhenryclinton2.jpg: American Museum link is dead
- File:Battle_of_Monmouth_Monument_at_Courthouse.jpg should include an explicit tag for the monument. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- CPR administered to the American Museum link, and patient has made a full recovery. PD-US-expired added to monument image, supported by date monument was dedicated as provided with source in summary info. Hope that's all in order now, and thanks as always. Factotem (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]- Citations are properly formatted
- Suggest adding |lastauthoramp=y to multi-author sources
- Bibliography otherwise properly formatted.
- Sources are high-quality and published by reputable houses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Did not know about that parameter - added now. Appreciate the review. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments from AustralianRupert
[edit]Support: G'day, very comprehensive article, which is well referenced and illustrated. I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- there is a mixture of English variation, for instance "kilometres" (British), "realised" and "emphasised" (British) but also "favor" (US)
- Fixed these, but...
- "manoeuver" --> "maneuver", per the above?
- "endeavouring" --> "endeavoring", per the above
- ...not these two, because they are in quoted text which, in the 18th century, used BrEng on both sides.
- No worries, although I wonder if then perhaps it would be best to put the whole thing in British English, but I don't really care either way and I suspect that such a wholesale change might derail the focus of this review which should be on more important aspects. Beyond that, though, wouldn't it be "manoeuvre" rather than "manoeuver"? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt the use of BrEng would survive too long in an article that has a lot more significance to an American audience than it does to a British audience. The hybrid British/American spelling of "manoeuver" is as given in the source. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, seems sensible. Thank you for confirming that the hybrid "manoeuver" comes from the source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt the use of BrEng would survive too long in an article that has a lot more significance to an American audience than it does to a British audience. The hybrid British/American spelling of "manoeuver" is as given in the source. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, although I wonder if then perhaps it would be best to put the whole thing in British English, but I don't really care either way and I suspect that such a wholesale change might derail the focus of this review which should be on more important aspects. Beyond that, though, wouldn't it be "manoeuvre" rather than "manoeuver"? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- ...not these two, because they are in quoted text which, in the 18th century, used BrEng on both sides.
- 550 men and 4 artillery south: --> "550 men and 4 artillery pieces south..."?
- Done.
- Using the same wounded-to-killed ratio and assuming a proportion of the missing were fatalities, Washington's casualties could have exceeded 500: probably best to attribute this synthesis. For instance, "Using the same wounded-to-killed ratio and assuming a proportion of the missing were fatalities, authors Lender and Stone suggest that Washington's casualties could have exceeded 500..."
- Done.
- promised he would "be the last one to leave the field."[110][107]" suggest ordering the refs numerically here
- reenactments staged every June.[181][179][182]: same as above
- Done & done.
- as did numerous more junior officers: --> " as did many junior officers"
- Prefer to leave this as is because the officers specifically mentioned in the source included colonels, which I don't believe is a junior officer rank.
- G'day, but doesn't "numerous more junior officers" in fact imply that the previous officers were also junior officers, which you are saying they weren't? Is there some other way you can word this to maintain your meaning? I say this because "numerous more" seems very awkward. If you are wed to the word "more" in this case, I'd suggest changing "numerous" to "many", or if you are wed to the word "numerous", then I'd simply suggest dropping the word "more" AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've recast the whole to read:
In their accounts of the battle, Washington's officers invariably wrote of a major victory, and some took the opportunity to finally put an end to criticism of Washington; Hamilton and Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, another of Washington's aides, wrote to influential friends – in the case of Laurens, his father Henry, President of the Continental Congress – praising Washington's leadership.
Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)- No worries, works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've recast the whole to read:
- G'day, but doesn't "numerous more junior officers" in fact imply that the previous officers were also junior officers, which you are saying they weren't? Is there some other way you can word this to maintain your meaning? I say this because "numerous more" seems very awkward. If you are wed to the word "more" in this case, I'd suggest changing "numerous" to "many", or if you are wed to the word "numerous", then I'd simply suggest dropping the word "more" AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Prefer to leave this as is because the officers specifically mentioned in the source included colonels, which I don't believe is a junior officer rank.
- the quote, "the important victory of Monmouth over the British grand army", possibly needs attribution in text. For instance, are these Lander & Stone's words, or Congress'
- How much of an issue is this? They're Congress's words, which I think is reasonably implied by the text and the fact that a modern author would not refer to the British grand army, but can see no elegant way of specifically stating that.
- No worries, it is probably ok how it is now. I was probably seeing something that wasn't there, although potentially this might work: army to honor, in their words, "the important victory of Monmouth over the British grand army. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- How much of an issue is this? They're Congress's words, which I think is reasonably implied by the text and the fact that a modern author would not refer to the British grand army, but can see no elegant way of specifically stating that.
- per WP:LAYOUT the Further reading section should be above the External links section
- Done
- ext links all work (no action required)
- there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
- at 9,694 words it might be perceived as being a bit long when taken to FAC, so I would suggest potentially looking at ways to tighten the language a little
- is the 14,300 figure that is mentioned in the infobox, clarified and cited in the body? I couldn't readily find it, but I might have missed it
- Yes, but indirectly. The last para in the "Reining in Lafayette" section details the strengths of the four American contingents which together add up to 14,300.
- No worries, works for me, although if there is a source that provides the aggregate total, it might be good to work this in at some stage, but it isn't a major issue. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, such a figure isn't available in the sources. It took quite a bit of reading to track down the given figure. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, good work tracking it down. Added my support above. Good luck taking the article further and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, such a figure isn't available in the sources. It took quite a bit of reading to track down the given figure. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, works for me, although if there is a source that provides the aggregate total, it might be good to work this in at some stage, but it isn't a major issue. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review. Factotem (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Does the lead have to be so long? Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure that it's excessively long. It covers the salient points, and I'm not sure what can be cut to make it shorter. Maybe other reviewers can comment? Factotem (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Does the lead have to be so long? Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but indirectly. The last para in the "Reining in Lafayette" section details the strengths of the four American contingents which together add up to 14,300.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.