Talk:Joint Expedition Against Franklin/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be slightly longer. It should be about two solid paragraphs, each about the length (perhaps slightly shorter) than a paragraph that would be made out of combining the three current paragraphs. The lead should be a good summary of the entire article, without include new information.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • This article depends very heavily on one source (the GPO document by Long, et al), and also heavily on sources from the North. Are there no sources written from the South's POV, and no other sources in general? Information on the actual reaction of the South would be nice if you can find it - everything currently in the article is what the North thinks happened, nothing about the perspective of the Southern troops.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • See above regarding the North v. South POV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • This article is somewhat overwhelmed with photographs. At least one of the images of ships should probably be removed, and perhaps more. The extra photos are creating a lot of white space in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor MOS and image issues, but the main thing is the referencing and heavy dependence upon one source. I will be watchlisting this page - please leave your responses/questions on this page. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, while I did a lot of work on this article somewhat recently, it was Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) who both started it and provided its sources. I extensively expounded what he started, but the tools are originally his and I would ask you wait on passing judgment until he has weighed in here (I've notified him). I am not well-versed in military history at all, much less United States-specific nor the Civil War in particular, and as such do not have the wherewithal to determine whether further sourcing is available at all.

That being said, I would like to inquire about your mention of "a lot of white space in the article." The last image (of the Whitehead) does progress into the "Outcome" section, but it doesn't seem to be creating any undue formatting problems therein. Is it perchance extending into the "References" section for you (based on your browser's resolution) and causing problems there? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I also do not see any white space issues and feel that the images add a lot to an article that might otherwise be bland to a casual pbserver (one of my intentions is to make articles that may be boring to a non interested party a little more interesting by providing photos when possible (and we are actually pretty lucky that these photos exist). I will do a little more reference searching and make sure it is neutral. Thanks for the feedback. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the intro paragraph, do you think it looks better? I am looking for sources with a better POV from the south but I am skeptical that I will find them. I will give it another few days of searching then call it off. Thanks again for your review. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead does look better, thank you. As for the pictures, it appears to be the size of my main computer screen that was making the white space show, as it does not appear on other computers that I use. As for the sources and POV from the south, if this article is to be broad in coverage as the GA criteria requires, I feel that it needs at least basic information from the South. This article does not even tell us who their commanders were, and the Southern death toll is simply an estimate from the general in charge of the northern forces. These are basic facts that should be included in the article, but currently are not. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I have through this weekend to work on this? I've found a source with Confederate-perspective information, but I'm a bit tasked with school for the next few days. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. As long as the article is being actively worked on, I have no problem with extending the hold period. Just let me know when you feel you've completed the work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thor, can you pass the reference on to me (is it digital?) I will take a look and see what I can get out of it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Raiford, Neil Hunter (2003). "First Taste of Fire: Skirmishes Along the Blackwater". The 4th North Carolina Cavalry in the Civil War: A History and Roster (Google Book Search). Jefferson, North Carolina, USA: McFarland & Company. pp. 13–20. ISBN 9780786414680. Retrieved 2009-09-14. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

  So sorry I didn't get to it, I'm still recovering from a virus I was dealing with all weekend, so I'm glad to hand it off if you don't mind making the best of it. I'll still help out with working on it, but now I have my virus and schoolwork to contend with for the next few days, and don't know how much concerted Wikiing I'll be doing. Thanks for the offer! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

← I am knee deep in school work too. maybye we should pull this out of GA consideration until I have time to expand it?Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I say if we don't get to it this weekend, that would be fair. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still the weekend, right? Damnable insomnia. I've expanded the article with the source I found above. I would very much appreciate though if you (or anybody) could copyedit this expansion and the prose that went into it, especially given my sleeplessness. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my page. I'm going to apologize in advance - a nasty illness knocked me off my feet a couple of days ago, and I can still only stand to be upright and focused on a computer screen for small increments of time. It will probably be the weekend before I have the concentration abilities to begin prose checking (and I almost always do a little copyediting on my way). Again, I sincerely apologize, especially for the delay after your hard work. Dana boomer (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No apologies necessary! I appreciate your willingness to stand with us as we work on improving the article. Take your time and don't push yourself for something like this, I hope you're well again soon! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken another look through the article, made a couple of minor prose changes, and now declare the article of GA status. The addition of the information on the Confederate movements much improves the broadness of the article. One minor comment (which doesn't affect the GA status) is that there are a lot of red links in the article. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, any links which lead to subjects that are probably not notable enough to have their own article in the future should probably be removed. Other than that, the article looks good! Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(Hope you're feeling better!) Thanks! I'm uncertain as to the merits of individual Civil War-era military units warranting their own articles, but I know red links don't hurt! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)