Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Raul654 17:15, 17 January 2009 [1].

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Tfhentz (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has passed as an A-class article, and I've added more explanatory prose to help readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. I believe it meets the standards for FA status. Tfhentz (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are there no level-one headers in the text? –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was bold and tweaked the headings and also the image placements. In the A-class review, Tfhentz didn't like the way the heading lines intersected the images. Hopefully, my tweaks resolved the issues. BuddingJournalist 19:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Juliancolton and BuddingJournalist for your comments and tweaking. It looks just fine to me now. The issue of heading lines intersecting the images was never a biggy with me. I also deleted the periods after stand-alone sentence fragments in two other image captions. SandyGeorgia, I corrected the disambiguation links for Forts Pitt and Washington identified in the toolbox -- good catch. I couldn't find a problem with the "Fort McIntosh" link or with "Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment," however. Cheers Tfhentz (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Generally excellent. "already had been all but" is a bit awkward. Some of the paragraphs seem a bit long, and might be better broken up. I also wonder whether this article may be confusing to those unfamiliar with the American Revolution. There are terms (Board of War, for example) that may need to be further explained or linked. Hopefully, a non-American editor will review this article and give his/her perspective. BuddingJournalist 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just added a second paragraph under "Fort Pitt and The Western Department" regarding the third and last change in the regimental commander. I noticed that I'd listed it in the Infobox but hadn't documented it in the main text. You might want to give it a look-see before finalizing your support. I don't plan to make a habit of making big additions. Thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per your suggestion, I split a couple of the long paragraphs in the latter sections of the article. Regarding the use of "already had been all but," I can't really come up with an alternative phrasing that gets the point across as concisely. I'll write up a separate, short Wikipedia article on the "Board of War" so that I can link to that -- I've already done so for my link to "Extra Continental regiment." I'll look for other terms that potentially need short articles or further explanation in this article. It's hard to cover all the bases with such things. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'm a hair concerned about how much of this article is cited to primary sources, and other reviewers should probably check to make sure that the primary sources are being used appropriately. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my read-through, the primary sources seemed to be used as a source for reported statistics and dates or other non-controversial facts. They didn't seem to be used for synthesis/interpretation. I didn't do a thorough check though, and I'll probably undertake a more thorough check of sources in the next few days. BuddingJournalist 01:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — as follows:

  • File:WILLIAMS exb.jpg, File:DanielMorgan.jpeg, File:Fort Frederick, Hagerstown vicinity (Washington County, Maryland).jpg, and File:Fort Pitt in 1776.jpg are all fine and dandy; they are paintings that are old and fall under PD-Art. File:Riflemen at Saratoga.jpg is not PD-Art as its painter has only died 10+ years ago; it is, however, PD-USGov as the US Army Center commissioned McBarron to paint the piece, which it published. I kind of doubt November 8, 2007 for its date as like I said, McBarron died in 1992; hence I have removed the date. Can someone confirm if this was a belated publishing, or find out the original completion or publishing date of the painting (not necessary for this FAC, but would be helpful for the image at Commons)?
    • I'll get in touch with U.S. Army Center of Military History and get the correct publication date for the painting. Thanks for your review. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775.jpg — can Tfhentz re-upload the cropped image without removing the EXIF metadata? This would greatly help to reinforce the fact that it is his image to bestow for free. If it was a scanned photo, I think uploading the original-size scan would help. The full-size scan can be uploaded to the same file name to include in the File history, then overwritten with the crop, or uploaded as another separate file (and linked from the cropped image). Jappalang (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just uploaded my larger, original-size image as "Flintlock rifle ca. 1775_2" as a separate image file. I also cropped this original and overwrote to the old file "Flintlock rifle ca. 1775" (the image that is now in the article) as you suggested. "Flintlock rifle ca. 1775_2" may be redundant, and someone may want to delete it. I hope I resolved the issue. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, it seems there is no metadata for File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775 2.jpg as well. The size also does not seem to be an original camera image (typically, in the 4:3 ratio). Since you are using Photoshop, you can use the "File -> File Info -> Camera Data x" (where x is 1 or 2) to check that the EXIF has not been erased. Typically, this happens if you had copy a selection from the original image, pasted into another window and saved it as a new work. Working within your original image window (and saving it under a new filename or otherwise) would preserve the EXIF. I have also edited the two flintlock images to link to each other. Note: depending on the scanner drivers used, scanned photos may not have EXIF. Jappalang (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found the 4:3 ratio image on my disk -- I grabbed the wrong photo before because it's close in dimensions to File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775 2.jpg. I opened this in Photoshop, and under "file Info," no EXIF data appear either. I must have made a copy of it at some point and saved that -- just don't remember. I'm stymied. Is this a no-go situation (hope not!)? Tfhentz (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. Those that are PD have their relevant necessary data filled (the McBarron painting lacks a date, but it is only a bonus to have that), and the user-contributed picture has the original picture to vouch for its veracity. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The McBarron painting was published in preparation for the Bicentennial in July 1975. I added this to File:Riflemen at Saratoga.jpg Tfhentz (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone know why the ISBN number doesn't appear for Williams, Glenn F. (2005) in the References? According to the MoS, ISBN #'s are "wikified automatically" (Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). This is what happened with my one other applicable book reference. Tfhentz (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments The prose is very good, and I fixed any minor issues I saw. A few items:
    • Suggest wikilinking the first uses of jargon like "company" and "regiment".
      • Thanks very much for reading through the text. I added links to "company" and "regiment" in the introductory section and to "brigade" at it's only use, although their Wiki description is of modern military examples. I'm not sure they're totally appropriate here, but I guess they're better than nothing. Tfhentz (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason you have the "sic" after the word "compleat" in the Fort Frederick and reorganization section? It is a valid modern word and correctly spelled - it is not archaic or historical.
      • I'm afraid I can't find evidence of its modern use. Merriam-Webster defines "compleat" as an archaic spelling of "complete," as in "The Compleat Angler" (1653) by Izaak Walton. I looked in two other dictionaries and couldn't even find a listing for this old variant. Tfhentz (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... probably included no more than about 30 to 40 new enlistees." Can we remove the "about"? When you give a range, the inexactness is implied.
--Laser brain (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work, just a few nitpicks:

  • "'discharging a Soldier after having been duly inlisted [sic] and receiving his regimental cloathing [sic] through private and interested views thereby defrauding the United States,'" Logical punctuation WP:PUNC, are you sure that the comma is part of the quote?
    • Thanks for taking the time for your review. The comma is not part of the quote, and I revised the punctuation. Tfhentz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 1, 1780, Washington issued orders approved by Congress specifying plans" A bit wordy and contains the awkward noun + -ing phrase. Maybe: "On November 1, 1780, Washington issued Congress-approved orders, which specified plans..."?
    • I revised the phrasing per your suggestion, although I used "that" in the restrictive clause. Tfhentz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the "Disbanding" section looks stubby, can you merge it with the previous one? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second single-sentence paragraph was added by a reader interested in the 201st Artillery Regt., and it really doesn't fit in the first paragraph that describes the disbanding. Tfhentz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maryland_and_Virginia_Rifle_Regiment&oldid=1088822741"