Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Wood Bush/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2018 [1].

James Wood Bush edit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about James Wood Bush a Civil War soldier who saw service in the US Navy and suffered injuries because of it. He was uniquely recognized in later life for his service in the war with a US governmental pension when Hawaii transitioned into a US territory. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, J. R. Kealoha and Prince Romerson. It has been an A-list quality article for a while following the same trajectory of GA than A-class review. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. Copyedit was done recently. I’m gonna ping all the reviewers (non-closers) who have looked at this article or the previous three articles for an opinion. Comment if you have time... KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wb, Kavebear. FWIW, pings don't work unless you sign in the same edit that you ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor, Coemgenus, Wehwalt, Casliber, Maile66, Dank, Dudley Miles, Hchc2009, AustralianRupert, ErrantX, Sainsf, Nick-D, and Maury Markowitz:, thanks for letting me know, did that work? KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It worked, but I've retired from the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:USS_Vandalia_(1828)_sketch.jpg: if the source is Harper's, why is this believed to be a US Navy work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: It was a holdover from the original upload. Changed it. Image was published in 1861.KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any obvious prose issues that need fixing and I suspect it is about as comprehensive as it can be (however I know little of the subject and context). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems to have been pretty well vetted before it got to FAC. I removed a few extraneous blank spaces that are inherent in infobox templates, but not a factor in any review process. Looks good to me. Nice job. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Most of the article looks really strong to me. I did find a couple of things worth bringing up, though:

  • Both in the lead and the body, the phrase "In recent years" pops up in referring to how Bush has received more recognition. This isn't ideal because such wording can became outdated over time. Imagine it's 10 years from now and the wording is still in the article; would it really be accurate then? Not sure if the sources will let you provide a more exact year range as to when the increase in recognition started, but if possible that would avert the risk of the wording becoming outdated. If not, perhaps this could be reworded to avoid the issue.
  • Minor point, but the Foenander and Milligan Hawaiians in the Civil War external link can be removed since it already appears in the bibliography. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just saw this will address this weekend.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @KAVEBEAR: Where are we on addressing these comments? Also, was there a source review I'm not seeing? --Laser brain (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Giants2008 and Laser brain: Done. No source review yet. So that needs to be done.KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support – My couple of small issues have been resolved, and I believe that the article, while relatively short for an FA, does meet the standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since user:Laser brain seems to be monitoring this and will be the deciding coordinator. Can the other coordinators @Ian Rose and Sarastro1: offer their two cents so this can move along and not go stale? KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Lorenzo Taylor was a Mormon editor of Deseret News used as a primary source here for Bush’s obituary information. I don’t know about McFarland & Company but the author (Frank L. Grzyb, author of six previous books, has contributed numerous articles to newspapers and magazines about America's Civil War. He is a member of the Rhode Island Civil War Round Table and lives in Rhode Island.).KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Recusing coord duties, somewhat unusually I didn't review this at MilHist ACR so have gone through top to bottom, lightly copyediting as I went. As ever with these bios, it's a brief article, but I've supported shorter ones. I'll take Nikki's image review as read but would prefer to see her do the source formatting check if possible, as it looks a bit more complicated than some and I think I'd miss something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Punaboy ref is dead, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Why "NC" but "D. C."?
  • Grzyb: the ISBN is for the ebook and the OCLC number is for the print - which was consulted? The Kuykendall ISBN and OCLC numbers also don't match
  • Jenson source is a periodical but is formatted like a book. Same with Taylor
    Not yet fixed, and why is Taylor after Vance in the list? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: How about now? KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the formatting of {{cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}} doesn't match - these might be better placed with the newspapers, although you'll need to decide whether or not to include publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Changed to cite news.KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like one of the Taylor cites is now broken? The Jenson cite should also be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Fixed again.KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include a retrieval date
  • State Archives ref needs more capitalization
Addressed all.KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hawaiian Journal of History" or "Hawaiian Journal of ,History" or "The Hawaiian Journal of History"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2018 (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/James_Wood_Bush/archive1&oldid=867632908"