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

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 Dabomb87 20:51, 14 July 2010 [1].

Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton

Featured list candidates/Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton/archive1

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a pretty good example of an order of battle for a land battle, and there are no such orders of battle that are currently featured lists (the only orders of battle that are current featured are for naval battles; there is a pending nomination for an army order of battle). American Revolutionary War battles are often difficult to document in this sort of detail, due to the large number of irregular units the Americans had in any particular theater, and their fluctuating sizes. I hope the list meets with your approval; it's my first FLC. (I specifically requested commentary from the promoter of the naval orders of battle; his comments are on the article talk page.) Magic♪piano 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: there are no dab links, the ext links all work and the images all seem to be appropriately licenced. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Hesse-Kassel and British Army section, use of the word "return" might not be clear for non-military readers (I know that it means a strength report provided from the field, but others might not), perhaps you might consider rewording?
- ~~In the Continental Army section, in the Notes part of the table relating to the 1st Pennsylvania Rifle Regiment I think "this unit includes" should be "this unit included" (tense);~~
- ~~In the References section, I think "The Long island historical society" should be capitalised as "The Long Island Historical Society" as it is a proper noun;~~
- ~~Would it be possible to add more categories to the article? Currently it is only in two and a couple more might improve navigation to the article (this is just a suggestion).~~ AustralianRupert (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made changes to address the above. A brief survey of other orders of battle shows that most of them have no more than one or two categories; I've added one obviously missing category. Magic♪piano 14:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is cited and complete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. WereWolf (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose quick read before a thorough review...

We no longer start lists with "This is the order of battle for ", try introducing the subject in the same way you would if this was a standard article.
- Fixed
One paragraph lead does not adequately summarise the entire list.
- Extended to two paragraphs
"It was followed up by two" up is redundant in this sentence.
- Fixed
Link Frederick II.
- Fixed
What do empty cells mean? E.g. Did the British 16th (Queen's) Light Dragoons not have a commander? Is it unknown? Don't just leave it blank.
And blank casualties. Does that mean none, not known or something else?
- I have filled in the blank fields. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused a bit by the table layout. You have Unit (in bold) and under it Rail's Brigade (in bold). This has a complement of 1354 - is this the "overall total"? Then if you add up all the complements, it doesn't come to the Total of 1,382. Deaths don't add up either, nor do wounded, nor captured.
- The reason for the numerical discrepancies is documented both in the preceding paragraph, and in the note accompanying the total (with accompanying values to make the adjustment). Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not keen on piped links which redirect, it's like a double deception.
- Is there a tool that identifies these? If not, can you tell me which you saw; there are many links in this article. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I look at all links in lists and see where they head, just to check they're not confusing or misleading. I also use a couple of scripts, my monobook has further details. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I think I found and fixed all of the piped redirects. Magic♪piano 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm very confused by the table.
- I'm sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, "Rambling Man is confused" is not something I think I can fix. Constructive comments like those above I can. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry that you didn't find my comments constructive. The presentation and information within the table is very confusing to a non-expert like me. I'll get back to you with more concrete concerns than just "I'm confused". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my work. If you have constructive comments on how to improve the presentation of this type of material (which might address your confusion), I'd really like to hear them, since I'd like to do more of these. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice piece of history. Sandman888 (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Total size: normally a sum-row sums all the elements in the column
  - I'm open to suggestions on how to present intermediate values (division and brigade sizes) to make this possible. I am experimenting with alternate table formats in a sandbox. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why don't you sum 'complement' the same way as casualties? Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oversight? Done now. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what does complement mean?
  - See wikt:complement, 3rd definition. Do you think the meaning of the column isn't somewhat obvious from context? Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm unsure what it is. The wiktionary offers no help. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've changed "Complement" to "Unit size". Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why do you have references under notes and general references under references? A more logical construction wd be References: Specific & General
  - I've arranged Notes and References this way for every GA (not keeping count; many) and FA (5) I've done; you're the first person to question the arrangement. (See also WP:CITESHORT.) Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That nobody else has commented on it is irrelevant. Okay if its official policy I'll leave it at that, but it's still weird to have what is de facto references under a section named "notes". Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to put in my two cents, the use of a separate Notes and References section is fine per the examples in WP:LAYOUT. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not to flog the dead horse (well maybe just a little), but according to my understanding, the things listed in "Notes" are actually endnotes, while the things listed in "References" are references. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The counts include all officers, including musicians," where musicians the only non-conventional officer?
  - Musicians (drummers, fifers and the like) were counted as overhead (along with the chain of command), but were not officers as such, or normally expected to be combatants. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - you have presented them as officers. otherwise it shd be an 'and'. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are correct; I have fixed this. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "more American troops probably died of non-combat causes" shd it be "combat-related causes", i.e. being a side-effect of combat?
  - The hardships of the campaign described may have nothing to do with the actual combat (hence "non-combat"). Fischer's point is that Washington's winter campaign was expensive in human cost even without the combat. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Officers killed or who died of their wounds included Col. Rall" is this Johann Rall? cd you write Col. Johann Rall to disambiguate
  - Done. Thank you for your review. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies for the delayed response; I am currently traveling, and internet access is somewhat haphazard. I hope my recent edits have addressed your remaining issues. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 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.