Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Louis H. Carpenter

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not promoted. EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Louis H. Carpenter

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk), Jrcrin001 (talk

A Medal of Honor recipient article. This just passed GA today, and I think it's ready for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments that help me improve the article towards an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance. --Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose
  • Due to a technical glitch I will be unable to check the disambig links in the article until August 10. Two external links are reported as supicious, please check and advise. No problems reported with alt text in the article.  Done
  • I am concerned about the second paragraph in the Battle of Fairfield section; its all in quotations, with no lead in or explanation of who is doing the talking. At the absolute minimum the paragraph should be a block quote, and in a best case scenario should either be reworded or removed from the article altogether if the information did not come from a public domain source.  Done Reworded.
  • The second paragraph of Later Civil War section needs some attention, the flow is awkward and the number of campaigns leads me to wonder if we could scrap the mentions of the individual battles for the sake of clarity.  Done Trimmed, is this adequate?
  • In the section "Indian campaigns in Kansas and Colorado, September–October 1868" there are paragraphs with unexplained jargon, the view of the story seemingly switches from one point to another with no real warning. For example, the fifth paragrpah of the section has no names; we do not know who doing the defensive positioning. Is it Carpenter, is it the major, is it htere troops, or the is it the Indians?  Done Reworded.
  • In the second paragraph on the section " Continued service — Forts & Command" I once again find quotation marks for nearly all the provided text. This should be in block quote, and it should be reworded if its coming from a copyrighted source.  Done Reworded.
  • The last paragraph in this section has no citation, it needs to be cited to reliable source or removed from the article.  Done Cite given.
  • The second paragraph of the "Later career — Spanish-American War" section has no reliable source and will need to be cited to one or removed. Additionally, the quotations lead me to believe that this is another paragraph copied whole from an external source, which means it should be in block quotations.  Done Cite given.
  • In the "awards and honors" section neither the "military awards" section or the "Medal of honor citation" section have inline citations, these section need to be cited to reliable sources or removed from the article.
  • I have NPOV concerns, lines like "Brave warriors" and "demonstrated for all to see how professional and effective the 'Buffalo Soldiers' were" seem to pushing an agenda. Can this be toned down any? Or is that not an option? ' Done Toned down and redone.
  • You have commas and semicolons in places where they should not be. A comma should only appear after the words "and", "or", & "but". A semi colon should appear only if it is followed by a word like "however", or when it links a sentence fragment to small to stand on its own as a sentence. I recommend getting a thorough copyedit before going past this point.  Done  Not done Partly completed.

This use of commas is true of British rules of english I believe. The use of commas after and is rarely necessary in the US version of english because the and acts as the link in place of the comma in most cases. Commas are also required where a natural pause is required so for example if I said something like "Wikipedia uses different rules of English, (pause for effect)some for US rules and some for British." I need a comma as a nature pause in the sentence. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• This never should have made it to B-class; How it passed a GAR is beyond me. There is a LOT of work left to do to get this article up to where it should be. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments, leaning oppose - I would have to agree with Tom that there are quite a few issues with this article. Just a few initial comments I would like to see addressed—in addition to Tom's—before I fully read the prose:

• Internet references require access dates.  Done
• Emdashes should be unspaced.  Done
• Under the "Honors and awards" section, the "Military awards" subheading is redundant and should probably be removed.

This is consistent with other good MOH articles and good military leader articles. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the articles I have seen this done, and assume why it would be done, would be for those senior military commanders who have dozens of awards, including several foreign or civilian awards, meaning that it would be separating the differing honours. However, as Carpenter only received military decorations, and did not possess dozens of awards as far as I am aware, the additional "Military awards" subheading is quite redundant as it is not separating anything. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• The image of Samuel Carpenter creates some unpleasant sandwiching of text with the infobox and, as I do not believe it is vital to understanding the article or context, Ithink it can be removed.  Done
• Is there any real reason for the addition of the "Military promotions" section? All of this information should be covered in the prose, and it comes off as image cruft to me.

It can be removed but I think this is a good visual representation of his ranks for those that are not familiar with them. I have also seen several GA+ articles with this so I know that there is precedent. Does anyone else have an opinion abou this section? --Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is consistent with other good MOH articles and good military leader articles. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have only ever seen such sections in very senior United States military personnel bios, but I do not think I have ever spotted one in a higher rated article (GA+). However, youse already know what I think on this, so I will leave it up to youse and others to decide. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• Please remove the medal of honor image from the infobox. It can go in the section that describes how it was won.

On this one I wanted to comment that the precedent has been set that MOH recipients have the Medal of Honor image in the infobox. When I have previously submitted MOH recipients for GA or better I was told repeatedly that the image should be in the infobox. --Kumioko (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is needed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This surprises me because of how awkward it looks, but I suppose it must stay for consistency. – Joe N 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• What does "until about 1886 he served on the western frontier" mean? Was he transferred in 1886, or do sources not say?

Reworded. He was transfered in 1887 back East.  Done

• "And as horse soldiers, they had a difficult time during the first year of the war." Awkward, rephrase please.

 Done

• In some places, links are introduced awkwardly. I've done some work, please make sure there are no more places.

Please recheck, I think you got most if not all of them. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• If he served in the Peninsular Campaign, why isn't in in the infobox as one of the campaigns he was involved in?

Info box redone. Hard to choose which of the 16 major campaigns and some 166 odd battles. Net result is an effort not to list any but the total of campaigns and battles. Is this acceptable? Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• "who with 400 troopers dismounted his men in a field and an orchard" I seriously doubt he was riding on top of his men, please rephrase to avoid confusion.  Done That was a funny error that should have been caught more quickly. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Please avoid using (CSA) to disambiguate in the text. It makes it flow awkwardly, and if the prose is written in such a way that these are necessary it probably should be redone.  Done (CSA) removed and minor adjustments done.
• Again, if he served in the Second Battle of Winchester, why isn't that on the list in the infobox?

It is not necessary to list every battle or award that the person has, just a few of the highlights. --Kumioko (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

See above regarding info box. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that you mention his service in many campaigns in the Civil War, but the infobox implies that he was only around for a few months in 1862. Even if you don't list every single minor engagement, it'd be nice if there was more than there is now. – Joe N 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly add in a few more but since he particpated in I think 166 different battles I don't want to list them all. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Adding in just a few more, or maybe a mention of his involvement in the Indian Wars would be plenty. – Joe N 02:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See above regarding info box. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox looks good now. – Joe N 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please go into more detail about his service later in the Civil War. You mention all the campaigns he was in, but have a very minimal description of his roles in them.  Done Section added with his role with Sheridan. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"At best these raid diverted Confederate forces required to deal with them.[14]" Awkward, and seems unclear - you're describing the Yellow Tavern, which you previously say was successful, and then seem to suddenly switch to an overall description of the cavalry raids with little transition. – Joe N 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)  Done End of para reworded.

• Watch image sandwiching in the Buffalo Soldiers section.  Done Picture moved.
• There are many places where it is unprofessionally written, please request a copy-edit for it.

If this is the case please be specific of the places you think it is poorly written, this article has already gone through a peer review, a GA review and now an A class review so please be more specific. --Kumioko (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than there being one or two specific instances, there are many problems throughout the article that would take an infinite amount to list here, including short, one or two sentence paragraphs. – Joe N 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok that helps I will read through and address the short paragrphs, is there anything else that you can see from a broad spectrum that needs to be addressed? --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the main problem. Once those are all gone it will still need some polishing for FA, but it will be much closer than it is currently. – Joe N 02:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please specify the Native American tribe they were fighting at the Battle of Beecher Island.  Done

Good, but please reference it.  Done

• Please go into detail about why he received his Medal of Honor.  Done Two sections that start with "Indian campaigns in Kansas and Colorado" detail what happened. I also added a comment at the end of the second section about the MOH and a back ref to these sections in the MOH section. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• " Only three dead warriors made it to within fifty yards of the wagons." If they were dead, how could they approach the wagons? Please rephrase to avoid awkwardness.  Done See above.
• In some places it mentions relatively obscure people, things, and events, without links or explanations as the the background, most notably "the capture and escort of Satank, Santana, and Big Tree", the "Victorio Campaign in 1879–80" and the "Chinati Mountains". This can confuse readers, please clear it up.

Working on it. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of sections with detail, links and refs completed. This has been cleared up.  Done

Much better section, one fragment I noticed though: "Troop D of the 10th Cavalry who were hidden out of sight when these warriors came to Sherman."  Done

The arrest paragraph reworded. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• "there are no known children." Reads awkwardly, what about just "he never married or had children" unless there is reason to expect that there might be extramarital children, in which case that should be discussed.  Done ... and he never married or had children. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Watch multiple linking - brevet, at least, it linked many times.  Done Removed several, but left one of two because of the separation from top to bottom. Is this okay? Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better. – Joe N 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall it really needs a lot of work before it will be ready for A-Class – Joe N 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is getting better. I have asked a few better, in American English, to look at the article. My living abroad in Brtish NATO schools when I was younger, continues to bugger me. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Once a copy-edit is complete and a few other remaining problems are dealt with it may be ready for A-Class. – Joe N 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Now awaiting copy-edit review. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some copy-edit work completed. English words to American, grammar, tense and some prose corrected. I still have the request for copy-edit up, but not much else being noted. When you have a chance, please re-check. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit completed as requested through the copy-edit process.  Done Please advise what else is needed for A-Class. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Second Review

• "The May 1864 Battle of Yellow Tavern was the first of four major so called strategic raids (the others being Trevilian in June 1864, Wilson-Kautz in late June, and First Deep Bottom in July 1864) and the thirteen major cavalry engagements of the Overland Campaign, only the Battle of Yellow Tavern can be considered a clear Union victory." Rather confusing, please rewrite.  Done
• Please fix image sandwiching in the 10th Calvary regiment section.  Done
• "This took place on the morning of August 6, 1867 and completed in the afternoon of August 7." This is confusing, please make it plain that (presumably) it was a two day operation.  Done
• "they found Forsyth’s command out of rations and forced to survive on decaying horse flesh, of which, not one animal survived." Awkward, rephrase please. Done
• "Seeking a more defensive closer to Beaver Creek," Noun, please?  Done
• You say that both defenses of the Wichita were the first battles in the Red River War, please correct this.  Done It was the second fight ... Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• "This was the high desert of far West Texas where he was in search of Victorio and other Apaches." Reads awkwardly, that whole paragraph could use some tiding.  Done
• Image sandwiching in the Later Career section. Done
• Much, much better, but still needs some work. – Joe N 15:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"... but still needs some work." Please detail and I will work on it. I am trying! Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.