Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Capture of Fort Ticonderoga

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Capture of Fort Ticonderoga edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has reached a point where it merits consideration for an A rating. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Magic♪piano 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox
  • Comment: it took me awhile to figure out what those little numbers were floating next to the footnotes. Now I see they're page numbers using some special template. So, the superscript in the text is a page number, next to a footnote number that links to the name of an author, which in turn links (more or less) to the title of the book to which the original page number (a couple links back) refers. This is the worst footnoting approach I've ever seen! This is not part of the A-class review criteria, so feel free to do what you wish, but I urge you to consider a simpler and more standard approach. The {{cite book}} template was always awful, the Harvard referencing within a footnote was a bad innovation, and now this? Make it stop! :-) —Kevin Myers 23:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of my articles don't use this style, for which I'm afraid we must thank User:btphelps. While I prefer split citations (see e.g. Boston campaign), I too think this is overkill. If enough other reviewers also have negative opinions of this style, I'll change it. Magic♪piano 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the citation style should be changed and become uniform and simple. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I've take care of it. Magic♪piano 16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment external links check out, but there are three dismbig links in the article that need to be located and addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Magic♪piano 14:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References comments (this version)
    • Can the section be 3 columns or can we move the two notes into a separate section as outlined at WP:REFGROUP? That long note in the middle does not look good in 4 columns...
      • This is problematic. If you look at the recent history, I tried to make it three columns. There's something about using {{reflist}} where, in 3-column mode, material below it is lost. I can certainly move the two longer notes into a separate section. Magic♪piano 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm. I'll take a look-see and experiment - if it doesn't work, oh well. :)
    • Van Tyne, Claude Halstead (1905). The American Revolution, 1776-1783. Harper & brothers. OCLC 23093734
      • Should "brothers" be capitalized? Fixed (Although that is how Google Books mispeels it.) Magic♪piano 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Word to the wise: watch what Google Books says - try to corroborate it with Amazon when you can. I've used two books from there that had an extra author added...(The American Battleship and Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • External links checked out with 'da link checker.
    • Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comments
    • "in a somewhat daring effort on May 18", the use of "daring" sounds POV Is bold better?
    • "American Patriots led by Ethan Allen and Colonel Benedict Arnold", again "Patriots" sounds POVish. Perhaps it should be changed simply to "Militia forces", since that amounts to what they mostly were.
    • "other Patriots in the Vermont territory were also aware of the fort's value" - again, "Patriots" sounds POVish, just say "American Militia" or something like that.
    • "making off with military supplies, cannon, and the largest military vessel on Lake Champlain.", "making off" sounds too informal and unencyclopedic. Changed to captured
    • "and the French had blown the fort up when they departed", again suffering from the same issue as above Clarified
    • "several people had the idea of capturing the fort." - which people? This needs to be more specific
    • "Boston area and Patriot supporters in Montreal," - again, "patriots" is POV. Change it to "revolutionaries" if you have to. Even that will suffice. They may have been patriots for the States, but they definitely weren't "patriots" in they eyes of the British, and their official histories as such would not refer to them as "patriots".
    • File:Fort Ticonderoga 1775.jpg needs its description translated into English. Fixed
    • File:Ticonderoga1.jpg needs a proper information summary Fixed
    • File:Ruins of Fort Frederick Crown Point N.Y.jpg has a PD Template that is now obsolete. This needs to be updated and fixed. Fixed
    • File:Ethan allen stamp.JPG also needs a proper information summary Fixed
That's all I have for now. I'll take another look in a bit. Cam (Chat) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In re Patriot as POV: my understanding, based on reading a number of WP articles (before I started working on them), and their talk pages, and having used the terms without objection on a number of articles in the Boston campaign and elsewhere, is that the neutral terms for referring to the partisans of the revolution are Patriot (American Revolution) and Loyalist (American Revolution), especially if those terms are introduced using those links (as I do in the lead here). If this is incorrect, there are many more pages that will need correction. (This is also why the term is capitalized throughout.)
In re "several people": umm, you did read the next two paragraphs, right?
I'll look into the other things. Magic♪piano 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues listed above are fixed now. I've made some minor prose changes. Magic♪piano 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Do flag icons exist for the colonial militias and Continental Army? If so, those would be nice.
  • All paragraphs needs refs at the end. The second one in Background, the final one in Colonial forces assemble, the third in Crown Point and the Raid on Fort Saint-Jean, and the final paragraph in the War of Words section do not.
  • "But as dawn approached," Don't start a sentence with "but". Fixed
  • "that Allen and his men were "governing by whim and caprice" at the fort, that the plan to strip the fort and send armaments to Boston was in peril." Surely there should be an and before the second that? Fixed
  • "His disputes with Allen and his unruly men were severe enough that weapons were sometimes drawn." Who drew the weapons? Avoid passive voice when possible. Fixed
  • On my laptop, the picture of the Crown Point ruins sandwiches with both the Champlain map and the stamp.
  • In the Repercussions in Quebec section, are the "local Natives" Quebecois or American Indians? You also mention the militia, making me think that the militia is the white Quebecois and the local Natives are the American Indians, but please clarify this.
  • "Benedict Arnold again lead a fleet" Do you mean led, the past, instead of lead, the present? Fixed
  • In the final section, you mention Randall, Smith, and Wilson, and link to non-existent sections in the article for each of them. Can you explain who they are, and link them to the proper place? Fixed
While the article is detailed and interesting to read, please make these improvements before it's ready for A-Class. – Joe Nutter 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In re flag icons: at the time of this action, I am unaware of any relevant flags; the United Colonies flag (13 stripes with union jack in the upper left) I believe was not introduced until 1776. (I also have not specifically looked for provincial (militia) flags -- suggestions on tracking them down if they exist welcome, as I've worked on several articles where they might be handy.)
In re Randall, Smith and Wilson: The links are to the relevant entries in the References section.
In re citations at the ends of paragraphs. I disagree that all paragraphs must end with citations. The para in the Background clearly ends with a lead into the next paragraph. The notes at the ends of two paras contain pointers to specific reference material. The sentence about Major Preston's movement does require citation; I will take care of that.
In re the bunched pictures. Feel free to edit the picture configuration to your liking; I don't have your arrangement, and it looks fine to me for all except the widest window setup, and that just barely.
I'll address the other issues in due course. Magic♪piano 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the pictures so it's good for me, does that work for you?
When I click on the Smith link, nothing happens. It works for Randall and Wilson and I see the entry for Smith in the bibliography, but the link doesn't work.
I don't really know where the citations at the end of paragraphs rule comes from, but I've always seen it required in other ACRs and FACs. Perhaps it's because some people only will put in one citation at the end of the paragraph to cover the whole paragraph, and I guess because you cite everything necessary where it appears it isn't needed as much, and the ones with refs inside notes work as well. – Joe Nutter 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture changes look fine to me; I believe I've fixed your other issues (the citation for Preston's move was merely misplaced...).
I see the "end of paragraph" rule as a reviewer shortcut for "is everything in this paragraph sourced". As such, it is at best a reviewer short-cut; you have to actually read for comprehension to understand whether something important enough to cite is being said, or whether it's just a rhetorical device. Magic♪piano 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's true. Anyway, Supporting now, looks good. – Joe Nutter 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (close to supporting) Support
    1. In the first paragraph of "Colonial forces assemble" it would be worth it to throw a few more Arnolds in there so as not to have too many "He did this''es and "He did that"s. Also, the Jonathan Brown mentioned there is not the same person as the spy mentioned before, right? Maybe a parenthetical note to that effect? Fixed
    2. In the first paragraph of section "Repercussions in Quebec": Is local Natives the best way to refer to the group?
    3. I added a {{fact}} tag to the "War of words…" section for the it is not uncommon to see… statement. Fixed???
  • Very interesting article and well-researched. After the third item is addressed, I see nothing that keeps this from fulfilling the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In re war of words: I was wondering if that bit of weaseling was going to make it. Would phrasing more along the lines of "histories and biographies sometimes contain..." be acceptable? (There isn't any historiography of this that I'm aware of. I do know that some of the 19th century and early-20th century works I've seen contain arguably partisan statements, generally depending on who they're writing about. I could probably dig up more references, but that's a lot more work than softening the words, and borders on WP:OR.)
In re natives: I know this is confusing for us Yanks. I would prefer to use the names of the specific local (Indian) Natives, but I don't believe any of the sources say that specifically the Caughnawaga (the nearest Native village to Montreal) were asked. The term First Nations is not historic (which is why I linked Natives to that term rather than using it), and "Indian" is probably non-PC.
I'll work on the Arnold and Brown things (yes the Browns are different people).
Thanks for your copyedits (I was unaware of the HMS template). Magic♪piano 01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've addressed your concerns about the historiography; I think I've made changes that should adequately address the other things. Magic♪piano 13:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good from here. Changed to support above. — 15:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. Two minor suggestions are that you add a citation at the end of the paragraph in the background section so that you won't have any uncited text, and that you combine any mid-sentence citations at the end of the sentence. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the citations. (See discussion with other reviewers above on why that paragraph's last sentence does not need a cite.) Magic♪piano 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Capture_of_Fort_Ticonderoga&oldid=1138360793"