Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Charles Scott (governor)

Charles Scott (governor of Kentucky)

I mostly do politician articles, but Scott was as much a soldier as a politician. Specifically, I want to get a feel for how close to A-class or FA this particular article is. In general, I want to get a feel for how much detail concerning battles, units, etc. is typical in an A-class article or FA about a military person. Other general suggestions for improvement are, of course, welcome and encouraged. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

Well I guess how far away it is from FA in part depends on whether you have exhausted all the available material. If there is more information, I would think that there is quite a bit missing, although the proportion of the sections seems balanced

Details of battles. These are like a listing at the moment, with just the names of battles and a result along the lines of win/loss. There should be information on what the objective was, and if they achieved it and what impact it had on the war if possible.
The governorship should also have more detail in general.
I guess people might want twice as much information at least, and more depending on if the battles were influential or not. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful input. I think what you are saying is that the battle's context within the war is more important than the details of the battle itself, unless the individual had a significant role in the battle (as with Richard Mentor Johnson at the Battle of the Thames.) That makes sense.

I also understand what you are saying about exhausting all available material. Clearly, there is more out there that hasn't been exhausted; it's listed in the "Further reading" section. (I list them there so I can keep track of where else I might go if I need to expand the article further.) Now, let me ask a loaded question: If I had consulted all the material available and this was the result, would this article be closer to FA or would it be impossible to meet the comprehensiveness standard and stay GA forever? (I realize that's a judgment call; I'm just asking for your opinion.) Also, I'm not asking so I can purposely leave sources off the "Further reading" section, either. It's just that sometimes, there really isn't any more to say. (Example: Charles A. Wickliffe served as an aide to two officers in the War of 1812. Neither of the officers has an article, so apparently, they didn't have a pivotal role in the battle, and consequently, neither did Wickliffe. Would that keep Wickliffe from ever reaching FA, or would it be understood that aides rarely do anything notable in battles, so mentioning that he was there would be sufficient?) Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the material is a bit sparse, this would do basically, as there is an outline of all teh basic info. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazulilasher

Excellent work thus far. I have a few small remarks which I hope will help your work.
Simplification of grammer. These are minor issues, but can assist readability. For exaple: "They ~~would~~ remain with Washington through 1778, and Scott served as Washington's chief of intelligence toward the end of this period" There is no need here for "would"; instead, try this: They remained...
First, some of the areas could use a little "beefing up". For example: "In April 1777, Scott was promoted to brigadier general." What were the circumstances sorrounding the promotion? Is there anymore information the reader could be given about this, likely significant, moment in Scott's life?
The same here: "Scott attempted to improve the state's faltering economy by lowering taxes, encouraging economic development in the state, and pursuing sound financial policies" What exactly made the policies sound?
"As tensions with Britain increased in the lead-up to the War of 1812, Scott tried to pacify the General Assembly by pointing out that France had also violated American rights." ... again, the reader asks "What rights did France violate".

All in all, very well done. The article is on the right track. I hope my comments helped a bit. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've made the grammatical change cited above. "Needs a thorough copyedit" it a comment I typically get on my work, not because the grammar is improper, but because it is sometimes awkward or overcomplicated in places. I have a hard time seeing these areas myself, since the prose is mine to begin with. If you (or anyone else) can see other problem areas, please don't hesitate to point them out.

Your other three points, are all valid, but I don't have the details to flesh them out using the sources I have access to at the moment. As I pointed out to YellowMonkey above, there are still some sources I haven't yet been able to consult. Still, seeing what specific areas folks think need more details is extremely helpful so that if/when I can get access to those sources, I can fill in the gaps. Please feel free to point out any other such areas as well. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; it was my pleasure to help out. Do not be discouraged by the "needs a thorough copyedit" remarks. We content writers typically become so involved in our work that we lose the necessary outsider perspective. Hence we require other editors to review our writing.

I will do some copyediting on the article in the next few days. If I, for some reason, forget: give me a nudge on my talk. Also, note if I screw up any of the content.

Lastly, no worries about not yet having all of the sources. It can take time, and is a process. I am sure you will be able to get the article to wherever your "goal" is. You have already drastically improved the piece. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight

First of all, good job on this article. It seems well done. A couple of points:

The name of the article could probably be at Charles Scott (governor), as there doesn't seem to be any other governors named Charles Scott with articles on Wikipedia.

The three sections describing his life (personal, military career, and political career) would be better off arranged chronologically as opposed to the categorical way they are now. That way, it's less confusing to readers, as they won't have to jump from time to time. It would also present a more complete biography, where it's easier to link the facts.

More facts from the intro could be repeated in the main body. You mention the Battle of Fallen Timbers in the intro as a battle that Charles Scott took part in, yet provide no details in the relevant section of the article. Also, burial details are in the intro, but not the personal life section.

Lastly, "Scott County, Kentucky, Scott County, Indiana, Scottsville, Kentucky, and Scottsville, Virginia were all named in his honor." in the intro should be moved into a "Legacy" section, as it is an abrupt shift from the subject in the introduction.

Hope that helped, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. Some were helpful immediately; all will be helpful eventually.

I have moved the article per your suggestion. I've always thought it needed to be moved, but I didn't know whether to move it to Charles Scott (governor), Charles Scott (Kentucky), or maybe even Charles Scott (general).

I've done my best to rearrange chronologically, but as is often the case with people who were in the military and politics, the overlap makes a strict chronology nearly impossible. There is still some overlap between Scott's early political service and his efforts in the Northwest Indian War. I'm open to suggestions on how to untangle it without creating some really short paragraphs.

I really don't have any details about what Scott did at the Battle of Fallen Timbers at this point. I hope to find something in the sources I haven't been able to consult yet.

I've moved the namesake information from the intro, per your suggestion.

Thanks for taking time to review the article. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]