Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [1].

Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec edit

Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the first articles I created on Wikipedia (after some months of just editing existing articles). It describes an adventure (and one of Benedict Arnold's less familiar exploits) that was at the time barely mentioned in other articles, like Invasion of Canada (1775). It's come a long way, helped by reviewers at GA and MILHIST ACR, and most recently with helpful copyedits by Malleus Fatuorum and Auntieruth55. I hope no dog lovers are upset by it, and that it is worthy of your approval. Magic♪piano 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose only. Really good stuff. Please check my three edits. Only ... when I pulled up this article, I was half expecting to see one of Arnold's adventures. Have you considered a title of Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec? Also, I had trouble with this part: "... forced to a halt by a significant accident. Fooled by the swollen river, a party of men had mistakenly turned up one of its branches, and on their return after realising their mistake seven bateaux overturned, spoiling their remaining food stores." Was the accident taking the wrong path, or losing their food? - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support; your edits look fine. As far as naming is concerned, I imagine that in most contexts where this article is linked, its name won't be a problem. On the other hand, I'm happy to defer to consensus on name changes -- it could also be something as simple as Quebec expedition (1775) (to distinguish from the already-existing Quebec Expedition of 1711).
In re the "accident": I'd say the loss of supplies (i.e. the overturned boats) was the accident. This bit has been through several incarnations of phrasing by various editors; I'll have another go at it. Magic♪piano 15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Kingsford is not a cited work, should be listed as Further reading
  • Smith (1907) is listed in both References and Further reading. Also on this book, the presence of an ISBN suggests that you are using a later edition. You should use the appropriate year, and add a note of the original publication details.

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Kingsford, and folded the Smith references together. The ISBN was for a recent reprint; I've removed it. Magic♪piano 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not crazy about the image set-up - on my screen, there are huge amounts of white space in Disaster on the Dead River, and some bunched-up edit links
  • More an issue of personal taste, but I feel that section headings 6 and 8-9 are more suited to title chapters in a novel than sections in an encyclopedia article
    • 9 seems fine to me, 8 seems a little dramatic. What would you use in place of 6? - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • St. or Saint Lawrence?
  • "poorly-known properties of the route" - wording
  • "on the 22nd" - per MoS, dates shouldn't include "nd"
    • MOSNUM says to use "June 9" rather than "June 9th". We've used "the 22nd" in lots of articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Great Carrying Place" or "The Great Carrying Place"?
  • When did Arnold get to Fort Western?
  • "Quebec's Lieutenant Governor Cramahé" - use his full name
  • Be consistent in referring to Enos and Greene as either Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel (after first mention)
  • Be consistent in using MA or Massachusetts in publisher locations
  • Spider Lake is mentioned only in image captions, not in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your eagle eyes. I've made changes to address these except for these:
  • I got complaints about the image layout for the maps in the ACR too; however, I've never seen what I consider gross amounts of white space, unless I widen my browser to its full width, and have yet to find a decent alternative (I think it somewhat useful that the maps are (1) relatively large and (2) side by side to emphasize the comparison). It maybe that using a floating box to hold the two maps (so that text can wrap on one side of it) might work, but this will risk short lines of text in other browser setups.
  • Sources (omitting creative 18th century spellings) generally use "the Great Carrying Place" or "the Great Carrying-Place"; the latter occurs mainly in older sources like Smith. (If you're objecting to "The" in the section head, this is to me a taste point; I think it reads better with than without.)
  • I've toned down the other section heads. Magic♪piano 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment. I am a bit concerned about the map at the top. I'm sympathetic to the idea of using a contemporary map, since it avoids anachronisms, but unfortunately this one (like so many old maps) is rather hard to read. I don't think this is a problem with the 1760 map, lower down: you include that specifically because Arnold used it, so it's an exhibit. The map at the top is supposed to be a guide for the reader, and it really doesn't serve that function. Without clicking through almost none of the text is readable (on my size screen, anyway) and if I click through it's little better. To be able to read it I have to click again to get to the image alone, and then unzoom that. Three clicks to get me to a map that is then very readable but so enormous that I can see less than 10% of it at a time, making it hard to get a sense of the terrain. I'm also curious to know if the boundaries, which look like state boundaries, might be anachronisms; were those boundaries in those positions on the date of the expedition? The map was drawn after the declaration of independence, after all, and the expedition was before it. I don't want to oppose just on this, so can you tell me why this is OK? Or have you considered getting a modern topographic map, and perhaps adding whatever the most important cities, boundaries and other features are, and drawing the route on that? User:Kmusser is a terrific resource for maps, if you feel it's worth it. I'll have a look at the rest of the article too, while I wait for a response. Other comments below as I read:

  • Shouldn't it be "endeavor", not "endeavour"? Presumably this is in American English.
  • In the Planning section, the comments about the inaccurate maps are a little confusing. First you mention Montresor's map, which had deliberate errors; then at the end of the next paragraph you discuss other maps and then go back to Montresor's to say Arnold didn't know it was inaccurate. Surely you could say Arnold didn't know it was inaccurate when the map is first mentioned? It would be interesting to know why the map is deliberately in error, though perhaps that's just footnote fodder. A separate point: unless the sequence you give (Arnold gets Montresor's map, meets Colburn, meets Goodwin, gets Goodwin's maps) is definitely chronological, I would put all the discussion of the maps together to make it less confusing for the reader. I wouldn't reorganize if Arnold is known to have had Montresor's map before he met Colburn though; the sequence of events is worth preserving.
  • In the "Cambridge to Fort Western" section, wouldn't it be better to switch the first and second paragraphs? Is there a reason to flash back in that way?
  • I think the 1924 map would benefit from an indication of scale, either on the map or in the caption. Reading that men were lost for days, I immediately wondered how big the area was that they were lost in.
  • I can only see it in snippet view in Google Books, but it appears from what I can see that Randall gives the date (Oct 7) on which Admiral Graves received news about the expedition. I think this is worth including, unless the snippet view has misled me.
    • Well, the ship's captain wrote a letter on October 7, according to said snippet; when Graves got it is another. I'll be in a library with a copy of Randall probably Friday; I'll check to see what more he has to say. Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I missed that. If the date Graves gets it can't be sourced then it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Randall, Graves wrote his letter on October 18; I have updated accordingly. Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. It was not my intention to make the map at the top be particularly readable; this is why there are large red letters highlighting the important locations and a legend explaining them. Even if I were to make an SVG map, it would be reduced to much the same information, albeit without the distraction of the fine print. (If you think there are other things that ought to be more clearly labelled, I can do so.)
OK. I'll think about this some more. To be honest I don't think using an old map has a lot of value if you don't expect readers to read the writing on it; it is atmospheric, but not much more. I do think the fine print is something of a distraction. Do you feel the age of the map adds value? Would you object to an SVG version? Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular objection to using an SVG map, although I did put in some effort to find a reasonably attractive period map, and creating SVG maps also takes time (at least when I make them...). I can also edit extraneous features out of the background map, but that's also somewhat time-consuming. Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On balance I think this is an issue of personal preference and not something I could oppose on, but I do think an svg map would be an improvement. It would be possible to create a map showing only the features of interest to the narrative, without distracting the reader with unreadable text. Still, that could be done later if other editors think it's worthwhile. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will act on your other comments in due course; your point on providing a scale of the 1924 map is particularly good. Magic♪piano 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made edits pursuant to your comments, and added a scale indicator to the 1924 map. I've not seen any indication of exactly when and how Arnold acquired Montresor's map, but he didn't get Goodwin's materials until he arrived in Maine.
In re Montresor's map: I read this in a source long ago and far away, that the map was some sort of file copy, and that it was British army practice at the time to omit and/or misdraw information on such copies. (Thus Montresor's original might have had distances and the locations of rapids marked on it, but the file copy might be either missing those things, or have them in the wrong place.) This was defense against them falling into hands of people that did not know how they'd been altered.
In re the top map borders: the map dates to 1780, at which time all of the relevant borders would not have been different than they were in 1775 (still being wartime and all). Map accuracy from these times is somewhat spotty, but this one accords reasonably well with what I know about borders of the time. (Maine's borders with Canada were not formally fixed until the 19th century; see Aroostook War.) Magic♪piano 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the borders and the sequence of events; I think the tweak you made worked well. Can I ask what the source is for the 1780 date? The Boston Public Library page doesn't give it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; the first version of this image used as its base a 1780 map, and I didn't update the image description when I changed it to the current map, which is from 1795. I'd still be surprised if there were any important border changes in the interval. (Vermont became a state in 1791, but this didn't change any of the visible borders.) Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; glad the date is corrected. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've noted is addressed; I'll have another read through tonight or tomorrow for MOS etc. and hope to be able to support. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The caption "Artist's depiction of Benedict Arnold, 1776 mezzotint by Thomas Hart" seems a little odd; if it's an artist's impression, rather than a depiction from life in some way, then that could be mentioned, but every painting is a depiction. Shouldn't this just be something like "Benedict Arnold, 1776 mezzotint by Thomas Hart", or even just "Contemporary portrait of Benedict Arnold" if there is no particular reason to mention Hart?
    • The depiction is clearly inauthentic when compared to portraits taken from life (see image at top of Benedict Arnold, and compare to similar Hart depictions of other people at e.g. David Wooster and William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe). If it had been taken from life, I would describe it as a portrait. Magic♪piano 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that "depiction" doesn't mean that it's not a portrait. I've cut down the caption a little; feel free to change it if you don't like what I've done but if the point is to tell the reader that it's inauthentic it needs to use a different word than "depiction". Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you did is fine (it's better than "inauthentic representation of"...). Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a sentence or two to the Legacy section about the relevance of this action to the wider conflict? If it was an irrelevance, then say so; as it stands I can't tell whether this episode had any impact on the larger military issues.
    • Offhand, I don't recall seeing any sources that ascribe an impact (or lack thereof) on the rest of the war, beyond the presence of Arnold and his men in the rest of the campaign. To make a statement one way or the other smacks to me of original research. Magic♪piano 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      If there are no sources, then there's nothing to be done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support above; everything looks good now. I will just reiterate that I think a reader would be better served by a modern map than the 1795 one. I feel this might be a personal preference on my part though and will not oppose on that basis. Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did some prose-hacking with this but nothing more. On balance I'd prefer that the article was called Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec; surprising as it may be to some in the US I doubt that many in the rest of the world equate "Arnold" with Benedict Arnold, more likely Arnold Schwarzeni Arnold Schwarzi the governor of California. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I had a poke around in Google Books after my last post here, and found this comment about the expedition: "On the success of Arnold everything depended. If he failed to take Quebec, Montgomery's success at Montreal was useless; and the situation was so critical and delicate that a very slight change of circumstances might alter the course of history." This is from The Struggle for American Independence by Sidney Fisher (1908); I've no idea whether Fisher is a credible historian, but it makes me think there might be more to say about the importance of the expedition than you currently have in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's certainly worth some consideration, but as you know, historical analysis has moved on since the early 20th century. I've seen editors criticised for relying on sources before about the 1960s. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can certainly wrap some words around that. I'll have to look at contemporary thoughts on Montgomery's arrival in Montreal. He ran into the problem of expiring enlistments at the end of November, and relatively few men wanted to reup for the push to Quebec. Fisher's is certainly a reasonable post-hoc analysis, but when the critical nature of Arnold's contribution was realized is an interesting question. (In re old sources: it really depends. In the US, for the revolution there are some fairly high-quality sources from the 1870s on that are often "right enough" and are often cited by modern authors. In this affair, Smith actually retraced the expedition's steps, and there are reprints available of most of the extant expedition diaries; see Roberts in the further reading.) Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon consideration and research, although Fisher's line is interesting, it is clearly post-hoc reasoning, because of the sequence of events. (Fisher writes as if Arnold is expected to independently attack Quebec, which was not the plan.) Arnold arrives at the St. Lawrence on November 9; Montreal falls on November 13, after which Montgomery has to deal with expiring enlistments (the force he brings to Quebec is about the same size as Arnold's, despite starting with more than 2,000 men). An attack on Quebec could only happen under the circumstances if Arnold succeeded, but by the time that would have been recognized as critical, he was already there. If I can find a historian who says something like "the attack on Quebec could not have been made without Arnold's men", I'll put it in. Magic♪piano 14:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a good read, but I was on the fence about whether it meets the criteria. The maps aren't great, as mentioned above. (I found the simple black-and-white map in Martin's book to be far more useful; it's the kind of map we'd really want.) But my real concern is about comprehensiveness (1b), and possibly the research (1c). The question is: where does one draw the line between being comprehensive and being too detailed? The article strikes me as being a bit bare-boned. No mention of Return J. Meigs, Sr., or Aaron Burr, or the various pay and command disputes. The presence of Burr is arguably just trivia; the other details are not trivial, but featured articles are sometimes too damned long, so we can't have everything. Personally, I wouldn't have been able to resist mentioning the grave-robbing of George Whitefield's tomb that inaugurated the expedition! I also prefer featured articles to briefly discuss the historiography of the subject. What are the assessments of historians like Martin and Desjardin? Do they disagree in any significant ways? How do they part company with earlier generations of historians? The best history featured articles give readers at least a taste of what the historians get worked up about. —Kevin Myers 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insightful feedback. In working my way through the sources, I didn't observe a great deal of what I would call significant historiographic interest; otherwise I'd probably have included something on it. (Someone, I think Desjardin, comments on Smith's criticisms of Codman's work, which was published a few years before his and may have stolen some of his thunder.) I also don't recall Meigs or Burr doing anything specifically notable during the expedition (although it had an important role in Meigs' later career). There were quite a few people on this expedition that went on to later notability; perhaps this should be called out in the recruitment and/or aftermath. Magic♪piano 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a simple roll call might fit well at the end of the "recruitment" section: "Other men in the expedition who went on to later notability included Return J. Meigs, Sr., Aaron Burr...." —Kevin Myers 00:14, 8 November 2010 (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/Benedict_Arnold%27s_expedition_to_Quebec/archive1&oldid=1138455884"