Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island/archive1

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:43, 5 December 2010 [1].

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island edit

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second order of battle I've nominated for Feature List consideration. The first was the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton (review), passed in July; it is the only featured order of battle for a land battle. The format I used is pretty much the same, although there are minor differences due to what sort of figures are available to report. I hope it meets with your approval; it has been through a MILHIST A-Class review. Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment

  • I presume that the battalions of light infantry and grenadiers were assembled from those companies of the individual regiments? Otherwise looks nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would presume so, yes. I've added some words explaining how those units are formed (sources don't identify which units contribute to which brigades, alas). Magic♪piano 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment. The British forces, under the overall command of Lieutenant General William Howe, successfully flanked Continental Army positions on western Long Island ... This sentence repeats the following sentence from the second paragraph: The British forces, ... made a successful flanking maneuver around the American left while occupying the American right with diversionary battle. Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is generally not written in chronological order and its first and second paragraphs partially duplicate/contradict each other. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory, but I've rewritten the lead. Magic♪piano 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better now. I have another problem, however. In the last table I read Glover's regiment, stationed on Manhattan during the battle, was sent over to Brooklyn on September 28, and was instrumental in evacuating the army on the night of September 29–30.. What is this sentence about? As I understand Brooklyn was abandoned on 29 August when the army was evacuated from Long Island? Was there the second evacuation at the end of September? Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thanks for catching that; it was supposed to be August, of course. Magic♪piano 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments - "Maj." and "Brig." do not fall under WP:ABBR#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia so should be written in full. Some of the rows are empty this is acceptable for the notes row but not the others. I am a bit confused over your use of the column spans example "British units" wouldn't this be best used as a section header? you've explained in the prose (though official titles should be added) who the Commander-in-cheif and Second in command were do you need a column span for this? I think it would also be more beneficial for the reader to convert the casualties row into a more suitable format such as seen here. I would suggest the removal of any small html tags in the tables to comply with MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I'm leery about dis-abbreviating only "Maj." and "Brig.", because you end up with ugliness like "Brigadier Gen.". I see a few options:
  1. Dis-abbreviate all titles. This adds text, and will probably wrap most of the text in the commander fields (I abbreviate the titles to minimize occurrence of this).
  2. Identify the abbreviations when they appear in the text ("Brigadier" does not currently appear in the text), or in an explanatory paragraph in the key.
  3. Leave it as is.
Preferences? Magic♪piano 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you still want to keep the abbreviations 2 would be the best option. I see you've taken into account my comments on some of the column spans, however you haven't addressed the other comments about the column span for example on "commander-in-chief". Afro (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting to the other items, just wanted to clarify the above. Currently the text does not explicitly identify the second in command; I need to figure how to work that in. Magic♪piano 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the British table to detail the casualty numbers in separate columns. Because of the way this affected column spacing, I expanded the ranks to full spelling there, putting the commanders and some units onto two lines. I've also reformatted the notes for brigades that didn't have more specific notes for the subunits so that they occupy the space beside the subunits as well, which helps reduce the size of the tables some. I've also added text explaining the rank abbrevations to the key, and removed the column-spanning banners at the top of each table. Magic♪piano 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the list "1 missing" looks out of place wouldn't it be better to formulate this type of information in a note? Why is ther e an excessive use of bold in the Unit column? also I don;'t understand the use of valign=top in the table head. I'm also a bit confused over the rowspan for the notes, is there not a better way to formulate this information in the table it just seems excessive. Also the occasional center alignment seems out of place surely theres a better way to convey this information. Afro (Talk) 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The unit column needs to differentiate three levels of hierarchy (division/brigade/regiment) in a fairly restricted space. If you don't like the bolding and centering as a means of differentiation (as explained in the key), feel free to propose an alternative. The notes spanning rows is intended that the note applies to the hierarchy of units covered by that span; why is this confusing? As to the "valign=top" in the table head, the next reviewer will probably complain that "Unit", "Commander", and "Notes" don't line up with "Casualties" if I remove it.
I've shortened "missing" and "captured" to "M" and "C", with explanation in the key. Magic♪piano 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off on the "valign=top" issue, the alignment of the table head hasn't been issue on the discographies, why it is here I do not know. On the center alignment of the off rows, it may be better to formulate this into a colspan. Also you may have unabbreviated the British units section but Hessein's units and the American units. Not sure if I've mentioned or not but the Command staff in the American units looks terribly un-organised not to mention there's a column missing on the right. Afro (Talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, there's a column missing? Please explain. Ditto on the "terribly un-organised" American command staff; this is the order in which they are presented in sources. Magic♪piano 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see the missing column directly under the American Units column span? Afro (Talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that a missing cell; it's not like an entire column was missing, something I've seen before. (And no, I didn't see it because it had no visible effect when rendered in my browser.) Magic♪piano 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made further changes to address your issues. I've changed the division headings on the British units; please tell me what you think. If this is acceptable, I'll propagate the style to the other tables. Magic♪piano 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks fine without the centering. Also on "Royal Artillery" in the british table you use valign=top again but don't seem to use it anywhere else. Also 3rd and 5th Pennsylvania Battalion have the same note for consistency I don't see why you haven't used the rowspan. Also I don't understand the use of the break you use for many of the commanders ie "Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich von Minnigerode", "Doctor John Morgan", I don't see what advantage the user gets by these breaks. Afro (Talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Artillery was aligned to top because it is the only place where the casualty figures are only available as an aggregate; however, I've removed the alignment. As far the line breaks in the commanders, I would prefer, if the table is sized in a narrower-width window, that the line break between the title and the name, rather than between the first and last names. I should probably try experimenting with non-breaking spaces in the names to control this behavior rather than forcing breaks. Magic♪piano 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed to forced breaks and replaced them with non-breaking spaces, so table resizing works smoothly. Magic♪piano 17:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very iffy regarding format for the American Units command staff I would think this could be formatted a different way right now it looks out of place on the table. Also I don't understand the column span for as example "Major General Israel Putnam", is Israel Putnam the Unit as well? Afro (Talk) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the command staff, and denoted the division commanders with "Commander" in the Unit column. Does that work for you? Magic♪piano 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Hessein and American units have the same Casualties format in their tables, just for consistency. Also the American units column span isn't needed. Afro (Talk) 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the American units header; you're right it's no longer needed. As for the casualties, do you really think adding four columns that are blank to the Hessian and American tables will improve them (on the altar of consistency)? The sort of numbers that are available is already documented, and really makes such columns unnecessary. Magic♪piano 14:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have no outstanding concerns. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have Afro, Sturmvogel and Ruslik0 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- I dont think there is much more detail out there unless one starts researching through primary sources.XavierGreen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "buy time" seems a little colloquial for me in the image caption.
  • In the lead, what is "Continental Army"?
  • "the early morning hours " reads a little odd to me, just "early hours" is normally acceptable, but it could just be personal preference I suppose.
  • "are identified only by bold text" I'm not sure this meets WP:MOSBOLD to be honest. I've learned recently that "table headers" are all col headings and all row headings, so this seems to fall between the gaps and be anomalous.
  • If you can think of a better way to distinguish brigade-level entries from smaller unit entries (that satisfies WP:ACCESS and any other MOS that applies), I'm all ears. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need to keep repeating "General" when you refer to "General Howe" but it could be a MILHIST thing so I won't get to worked up about it, it's just a little repetitive.
  • " the officer's rank is sometimes abbreviated" I'm wondering why, after this point, you don't just abbreviate all ranks for consistency.
  • Well, after the back-and-forth with Afro above, I ended up changing all of the ranks to be fully spelled out; I've removed the comment about abbreviation. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hessian units table, you have a rowspan for the first four and the second four units, but the same comment. Why?
  • Because I wanted to limit row-spanning to the brigade level. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basis for this order of battle is a return prepared" tense? why not "was a return prepared"?
  • Because I'm talking about the order of battle in this article? Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 needs a space between pp. and the page range.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments – Just a few tiny formatting issues. Even a pedant like me is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
  • The last note in the key has no period, while the others do. Is this intentional?
  • American forces: No need for two John Sullivan links in this section. Just the first one will do.
  • At the bottom of the American table, the citation note has a period at the end. This is not true of the British tables. I don't really care which way it is done, but it should be consistent throughout.
  • Reference 62 has a space between the page number, unlike the other multiple-page refs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking in; I've fixed these. Magic♪piano 18:18, 3 December 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_list_candidates/Order_of_battle_of_the_Battle_of_Long_Island/archive1&oldid=1089076453"