Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Charles Scott (governor)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott (governor)

edit
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs)


How about this for a change from me – a politician who is better known for his military exploits? Charles Scott was a veteran of the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, and the Northwest Indian War, and became governor in the lead-up to the War of 1812. It is a GA, but I just finished a major rewrite based on some sources I didn't have access to back then. I intend to take the article to FAC, but since politics and not military history is my strong suit, I thought I'd get it vetted here first. Hope to respond to comments promptly. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This looks to be a very good article. I haven't gone through it all yet, but here's one issue that caught my attention. The lead and the "Early life" section both say "Scott enlisted in the Virginia militia". My impression is that regular soldiers "enlist", but militiamen don't exactly "enlist"; they show up for duty in emergencies and then go home. We should doublecheck the language the sources use. I only have a snippet view of Ward's Spirit of '76, but he appears to say that "Scott joined the Virginia Regiment", which was really a regular unit rather than militia. You might want to link to Virginia Regiment in the article, and see if Ward, an expert on this, makes a distinction between that regiment and the militia. —Kevin Myers 03:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are quite right. I didn't realize the Virginia Regiment was a regular unit, not militia. I have made this correction now. This is the kind of feedback I need from this review. My knowledge of military protocol is weak; I primarily stick to politician articles. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused by dates in the first two paragraphs of the "Settlement in Kentucky and early political career" section. Probably just a couple typos. Did you mean "1785" in the three places that "1795" appears? —Kevin Myers 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be 1785. I thought I had corrected this earlier, but perhaps I mis-corrected it, changing 1785 to 1795 instead! Fixed now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section, you might want to reconsider using the adjective "marauding" to describe the Shawnee raid. In older histories, whites conduct expeditions while Indians maraud, but many modern scholars are sensitive to possible linguistic double standards. —Kevin Myers 05:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I second-guessed that term myself when I wrote it, but didn't know what else to use. I just deleted it and said "Shawnee warriors" crossed the Ohio. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the route taken by Scott's men in the first paragraph of the Northwest Indian War. You say they "departed from Limestone on April 18, 1790, marching to the mouth of the Scioto near the present-day city of Portsmouth, Ohio. From there, they headed south and discovered an abandoned Indian settlement." Which side of the Ohio River are they on? If south of the river, maybe you should say across from the present-day city of Portmouth. That's probably what threw me: if you say they're near Portsmouth, I picture them north of the river, but then they head south, and so I realized they're probably south of the river. But then I see that they discover an abandoned Indian "settlement", although there were no Indian settlements south of the Ohio at this time. Do you mean "encampment" instead of "settlement"? I think Ward says "encampment", which makes more sense south of the river. —Kevin Myers 05:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You aren't the only one confused about the route, although I know little of the geography there. This is the relevant quote from Nelson's article:

"On the 18th of the month, Harmar with 160 regulars and Scott with 230 Kentucky mounted volunteers, mostly from Bourbon and Fayette counties, marched north-northeastward from Limestone to the upper Scioto, then almost due southward to the mouth of that stream, emerging on the Ohio near the present town of Portsmouth."

From there, he just says that the raid accomplished little, but doesn't give any details. Here's what Ward says about it:

"On April 18 Scott with 200 volunteers joined Harmar's regulars, and the next day the combined force crossed the Ohio. By April 25, Scott's and Harmar's troops had proceeded fifty miles from the mouth of the Scioto. Then, making their way southward, they came upon the deserted Indian camp."

Don't know if this will help you make better sense of the route or not. Nelson includes a footnote that points to Military History of Kentucky (1939), pp. 53-54, but Google Books only has a snippet view of that. If you have access to a copy, it might provide more clarification. Also, as you can see, you were right about it being a camp, not a settlement (carelessness on my part). I corrected that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get it now. Your wording suggests that they marched south from the Portsmouth area, but actually they marched south from the upper Scioto towards Portsmouth. I've reworded it. —Kevin Myers 05:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another very good article from Acdixon, easily meets the A-class criteria. Going forward to FAC, you might consider moving some details to other articles, especially if you think readers and reviewers might find the article overlong. For example, we don't need to read here who Scott replaced as colonel of the 5th Virginia; that could be in the article on the regiment. Similarly, the paragraph on the Edwards and Wilkinson expeditions, in which Scott did not take part, could be in the Northwest Indian War article rather than here. Of course, moving details often requires work on the target articles, which is time consuming and something you might not wish to do, especially if reviewers don't find the article length to be problematic.
I may wait for those issues to be raised at FAC. I did wonder in places how much detail was too much, but I'll let the community decide that. I would be a little intimidated editing some of those other articles, since military history is not my specialty. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor point, I'd replace the George Washington picture with one from his wartime career. The portrait is of President Washington from nearly 2 decades after the events described in the nearby text. Washington was relatively young during the war, and we should avoid contributing to the common misconception that he looked like the old guy on the dollar bill during the Revolution.
I was hoping to stick with one that could go on the left (looks better on my oversized monitor), but you are right. I found one of him just prior to the Battle of Trenton, which is the appropriate time period for that point in the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great article overall, I learned a lot. —Kevin Myers 06:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Your knowledge of this time period is substantial, and the fact that you found so few things that needed correcting gives me a nice boost of confidence! If it's OK with you, I'd like to drop you a note when this goes to FAC. Depending on when my ACR of John Sherman Cooper, this ACR, and my current FAC for James Garrard all close, it could be as late as April or May or as early as March. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, best wishes. —Kevin Myers 05:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have no knowledge of the topic, so I have only focused my review on level of referencing, prose and presentation. In those regards, I'm happy that it meets the A-class standards. I wasn't able to check the images for licencing as there are too many for my download limit. A couple of minor points I picked up:
    • in the Bibliography, for the Harrison work there is a double full stop next to "John E.. ed". This should probably be removed;
    • as above "NY Facts on File, Inc.." No need for a double full stop and indeed, based on comments I've seen at FAC, it's possible that "Inc." is not required either;
    • double full stops: "Trowbridge, John M.."
    • some works in the Bibliography have publisher locations and others don't. At FAC, I think they will ask for all or none. I don't necessarily agree with this guidance, but it might be something for you to consider;
      • Not only do I know it will be raised at FAC, I know who will raise it! :) Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Further reading section, I wonder if ISSNs or OCLC numbers could be added;
      • Since I grabbed them from "Further reading" sections in the other sources, this is all I know about them. I tried to get copies on interlibrary loan, but no luck so far. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure whether or not the Find-A-Grave link in the External links section will survive scrutiny at FAC. I'm not sure of current policy, but I remember some vigorous debate in the past. I don't have a problem with it, given that you are not citing it as a reference, but just be aware that someone might.
      • I am very unattached to that link. I don't think I was the one who added it, but I just hung onto it since someone bothered to put it there. If they want it nuked at FAC, it shall be nuked. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, that's it from me. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the quick and positive review. It will save me some trouble down the road. If I get reviews this quickly on this article, I might be able to get it to FAC before John Sherman Cooper even finishes its ACR! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose mainly per sourcing (see below), subject to nominator's response:

  • External links: one of these appears to be dead (see [1])
    • Fixed. NGA changed all their links about a year ago, and I haven't bothered to go back and change them on all 58 Kentucky governors yet. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig links: seems fine ([2])
  • Reference formatting: the refs might benefit from some tidying and rationalisation (see [3])
  • Image licensing: looks good; the only minor point is File:General Green Clay.jpg which, although it's PD, is stored on Wikipedia rather than Commons. To allow its use on other WMF projects the image should really be transferred over (Note this has no effect on the outcome of this review)
  • I haven't checked the text against the references because I don't have access to them. However one possible issue is the article's heavy reliance on one or two sources. There are a range given in the Bibliography and Further reading sections, and Google books suggests a number of potential sources ([4]).
    • I'm not really sure how to respond to this, since proving a negative (i.e. "there aren't more sources out there") is impossible. I will say that I requested each of the articles from the further reading section on interlibrary loan and wasn't able to get any of them. If I ever do, I will update the article. Particularly, if I could have gotten "General Charles Scott and His March to Ouiatenon", I was going to try my hand at creating an article about the Ouiatenon campaign.
      • "General Charles Scott and His March to Ouiatenon" is an 87 year-old article written by an amateur historian. It's the kind of "dodgy" source I encourage people to avoid if possible (see below). Ward's biography of Scott cites that article and presumably used the reliable parts; no need to try to redo what our expert source has already done. If you want to expand upon Scott's involvement in this war, I recommend President Washington's Indian War by Wiley Sword, a modern scholarly source with some good info on Scott's campaign. —Kevin Myers 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also this book review from someone at the University of Pennsylvania which notes: "Unfortunately for posterity, Scott's personal papers are no longer extant. The papers, stored by his son-in-law, were destroyed by mice. Ward attempts to make up for this loss by painstaking research of the major and minor manuscript collections of the period along with virtually every other available source, and has succeeded in piecing together a cogent narrative. Still, the loss of Scott's papers leaves certain gaps in the narrative. As a result, little is told about his early life, his personal likes or dislikes, and not much is known about his thinking on the major issues of the day." (p. 147, or p. 7 in the PDF). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose and article organisation seems good.

Thanks for an interesting article :) EyeSerenetalk 10:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I hope to secure your support at some point. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I regard EyeSerene's comments about sourcing as potentially harmful to the quality of the article. I've long cautioned Wikipedians against viewing sources as something to be sprinkled into articles like adding spices to food, as if a dash of this source and a pinch of that source constitutes quality research. If there are only 2 or 3 modern scholarly sources on a given topic, that's all you need. Don't add lesser sources just to create variety. An article written with 2 good, reliable sources is better than one written with 2 good ones and 6 dodgy ones. Conversely, if there are 8 modern scholarly sources and the article uses only 2 or 3, that's a problem. If there any modern scholarly sources that this article neglects, let's focus on that. But the common impulse to "add more sources" is, in my view, best avoided. I know EyeSerene is not advocating adding dodgy sources to the article, but I think an "oppose" should be based on specific mentions of neglected sources. —Kevin Myers 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for your responses. Regarding Kevin's comment, I agree with everything you've said. You noticed I wasn't advocating adding additional sources - my phrasing there was quite deliberate. In my experience there are two reasons why articles rely heavily on very few sources: (1) because the author(s) haven't carried out a thorough-enough document search; or (2) because a wide range of suitable sources don't exist. My concern was prompted by the fact that the Bibliography section appears to be quite comprehensive but most of the sources listed there have been used only once or twice. The Further reading section implies there are other sources that could have been drawn on but weren't. All I was really after was an assurance, which Acdixon has kindly provided, that there are good reasons for this. Switching to support. EyeSerenetalk 08:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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/Charles_Scott_(governor)&oldid=483511856"