Talk:James Innes (British Army officer, died 1759)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. At first glance it looks pretty solid. I'll start with a close readthrough, noting any issues here I can't immediately fix, and then turn to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This looks good on my first pass, and I think it's close to Good Article status. There are a few issues that could be addressed, though, most having to do with adding more context for the various military engagements, but also with WP:WTA and the lack of an image.

• I've done some minor copyediting, so take a glance and make sure I haven't accidentally introduced an error or change in meaning.

• It all looks good to me. Thanks for the edits!

• "was a prominent military commander" -- prominent seems like minor peacocking; since his specific exploits are detailed in the same paragraph, I think "prominent" can be cut.

• Done.

• "With the onset of war against the Spanish," -- Can you add one sentence giving context for this war? "In 17xx, war broke out between Britain and Spain over xxxx." This article's very short, so don't worry about taking up too much space.

• Done

• "Battle of Cartagena de Indias" -- Since this was one of Innes' primary military engagements, it would be helpful to give a sentence or two of context on it--mentioning that it was a disastrous British loss, and preserved Spanish supremacy in South America, perhaps? And mentioning that it's in what is today Colombia? (I'm working from the battle's article here; you can doubtless give a better summary.)

• Done

• "With the possibility of the outbreak of war in 1754," -- another moment where context would be helpful for a reader; can you give a one- to two-sentence background of the war?

• Done

• It's confusing that the British and French forces are already doing battle before "the onset of the French and Indian war"--can this timeline be clarified? What event marked the formal beginning of the war?

• 'The battles between Washington and the French took place in the absence of any declaration of war, and most scholars agree that they were substantial triggers for the French and Indian War. If you want a great explanation, just read the first 30 pages of Anderson's Crucible of War -- a young, inexperienced, hick-ish George Washington leading a group of green VIrginia militiamen into the vast Ohio frontier, guided by a shady Indian ally. What starts as a benign mission of observation ends in a crisis of international proportions, with a lot of dead Frenchmen, and the surrender of the militia. Anyways, I added a few sentences to try and clear it up.

• "the disastrous Braddock expedition" -- another moment where you might give a bit more context. What is this, and why was it disastrous?

• Done.

• "By the summer of 1756" -- "mid-1756" would be better here per WP:RELTIME

• Done.

• Ideally the article's lead sections should touch on all subsections of the article; you might add a brief note that lived out his remaining days as a planter and contributed to Innes Academy.

• Done

• The article lacks images. This is public domain, and so are some images of George Washington; surely something appropriate can be found to illustrate one of the conflicts if not Innes himself.

• Done. While running the risk of being repetitive, this guy's military career was centered on the maintenance of, and in one instance, failed assault on, forts. So, I give you forts.

• The infobox mentions King George's War, but the article does not. Is this the engagement in Brunswick Town? Again, I would suggest giving context to that attack--what is the larger conflict here, and where does this battle fit into it?

• Done.

Once you've had a chance to respond to the above, we can move on to the checklist. Thanks again for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I will address these by this evening; I'm in and out of court today, so I'll work on it sporadically. Cdtew (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Great-- there's no rush. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started inserting my responses, which are all in italics. I'll ping you when I'm done. Cdtew (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've hit most of the high points; I'm happy to correct anything else you may see. Cdtew (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that should just about cover it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good, and spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

3a.

Looking at the North Carolina historical marker, it states that "For almost ten years, beginning in 1750, Innes served on the Councils of Governor Johnston and his successor Arthur Dobbs. Also on the Council was Francis Corbin with whom Innes served from 1751 to 1754 as a Granville agent. Innes’s plantation, known as "Point Pleasant," was north of Wilmington in a sharp bend of the Northeast River."

The plantation name is a bit of trivia that might be worth adding, but the main thing that concerns me is adding his Council service; "active in colonial government" almost covers it, but it would be good to mention he held this post. (Probably add it to the lead, too.) What do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added a cited reference to his service on the governors' council, and in the lede I added that he was a political figure as well. The Governors Council in NC, while prestigious in its own right, was more of an advisory position, and, especially in Dobbs' later years (and certainly during Tryon's stint as Governor), was largely symbolic. I think it's important, however, to show that he was a man who was accorded some influence. As for the Point Pleasant fact, I added that in the Retirement subsection. Thanks again! Also, that GAN template is excellent! I may have to borrow it... Cdtew (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks great, thanks. You can reproduce the template the easy way by typing {{subst:GATable}} and saving, and the full table gets subbed in. Now that you have a few GAs under your belt, I hope you'll consider reviewing a few yourself at some point--we can always use more reviewers! Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)