Talk:James Moore (Continental Army officer)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Magicpiano (talk · contribs) 15:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll review this again. Magic♪piano 15:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a significant improvement over where it was last time. There are a few issues, though, that should not be too hard to resolve.

Breadth

• Do we know anything about his business activities? Did he own slaves? What was grown on his plantations? (Sometimes we don't know, but sources for this sort of material are not always war- or politics-related.)

• This is a tricky one. My first belief is that his slaveowning has been whitewashed (no pun intended), and that his business interests were likely as a gentleman planter. Saunders/Clark's Colonial and State Records, Dill's book on Tryon, South's work on Colonial Brunswick, and Lefler and Powell contain no information about this. I'll keep digging in my non-military sources, but right now, I'm tapped out in my book sources.

• Ugh, silly me, I forgot the appendices in Schaw. I've added that source and refs to at least some information on what he did in his youth and him purchasing a plantation. Obviously since his family imported a large amount of slaves, it's likely he had some, but I haven't seen a scrap of anything indicating that he had "x slaves". I did find a runaway slave advertisement for a James Moore from 1773, but the source is inaccessible to me on Google Books, and I can't verify that it's this James Moore. Cdtew (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• What you added is fine as far as I'm concerned for GA, although you may need to get more before going on to FAC. Magic♪piano 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• "After distinguishing himself as a colonel in the Patriot victory at the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge on February 27, 1776" If he wasn't there, you can't say this; it was his strategy (orders and movements before), and not his presence, that distinguished him.

• DoneI corrected to be a little more clear; technically he did take part in the larger battle as he arrived a short time after the fighting at the bridge was done and pursued the fleeing Loyalists. But you're right overall.

Colonial service

• Please present this information chronologically; right now second paragraph is essentially a flashback from the first one.

• Done That's funny. It's almost like it was ready to be reorganized, but I must have forgot to go back and do so.

• Link terms like War of the Regulation and Battle of Alamance.

• Not done Battle of Alamance is linked in the lead, as is War of the Regulation. I was under the impression that links in the lead preclude the need for links in the body. Will add anyways, if you think that's what needs to happen.

• Well, WP:REPEATLINK is of course vague on the subject. I traditionally link in both the lead and the body. It's not something to hold up the review though. Magic♪piano 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Moore's Creek Bridge

• "The British forces" I would use "The British Army and Navy"

• Done.

• What was the proximate cause of Moore move towards Cross Creek (and Caswell's mobilization)? Why was Moore not at Moore's Creek Bridge?

• Done I think?

• I would omit most of the detail of the battle, since Moore was not there, and focus on what Moore did before the battle. You should highlight the movements he ordered and made himself (and the Loyalist attempts to counter), since their strategic consequence are what he's being credited with in the legacy section. See Rankin about p. 43 and the sources in the battle article (which I worked on...)

• Done While I'm loath to take out much of the detail, since I think it might be helpful for future assessments, I do agree its imbalanced towards events for which he wasn't present. Modified now to be a little better.

Continental Army general

• Second para, first sentence too long.

• ? Not sure which one you mean; that sentence appears to be of average length.

• Hmph, now I can't find it. Magic♪piano 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Are there examples of how Moore strengthens Wilmington's defenses (upgrading/expanding fortifications?)

• Done

• Numbers like 1847 and 2035 don't sound "approximate" to me.

• Done Eh, the source I used said "approximate", and god knows how they got those numbers, but I'll change to "about" to indicate proximity but not certainty in one, and removed the other.

• "many of the officers joined the South Carolina line" were they deserting, failing to reenlist, or what?

• Done The source clearly indicates they were deserting to take higher pay from SC. "against the warnings" of their officers.

Sources

• Davis 1896 is not referenced (maybe it should be a "See also")

• Done I intended to add something in from there, and have done so now.

Images

• Images check out OK.

• Thanks for your graphic contribution, by the way! On your map, I think you may have mistaken what I was saying; I only intended to say that Moore's movement to Cross Creek was to block a possible path of retreat/withdrawal that the Loyalists could have used to escape their awaiting entrapment. I've altered it to be more accurate -- your caption was actually for your second image, in which Moore is moving towards the coast.

• I was mostly objecting to the use of the word "retreat". The Loyalists were trying to effect a junction with other forces while avoiding conflict; calling this a retreat (or even a withdrawal) is POV. Magic♪piano 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't take too much time to sort out. Magic♪piano 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help and expertise! Cdtew (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Passing; well done! Magic♪piano 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: