Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Fort Sumter/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 18 March 2011 [1].

Battle of Fort Sumter

Featured article candidates/Battle of Fort Sumter/archive1

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a major contributor to the article (I have made some edits recently) however I have consulted with the three top contributors to the article and sought their input on nominating this for FA. I believe the article is well written and comprehensive. In connection with Operation Brothers at War, I am endeavoring to have this article promoted to FA in time for the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Fort Sumter. Hopefully, if reviewers feel it is worthy of FA, it could occupy the main page on April 12, 2011. I realize time is short, but I am willing to work hard and hopefully it can be done. Any suggestions on improving the article would be most appreciated. Thank you!! Historical Perspective (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but don't feel it's yet at FA status.

Given the length of the article a longer lead would be appropriate
"The battle lasted 1861-1865" - was there supposed to be more to this sentence?
"American Revolutionary war" - capitalization
Article needs some general copy-editing for clarity and flow
"South Carolina authorities considered Anderson's move to be a breach of faith" - this needs to be further explained
File:Sumter1.gif is missing author information. If author is unknown, say so
File:ConfederateBattieries2.jpg is missing source and author information
"Instead, it seemed prudent to send an unarmed civilian merchant ship, Star of the West...Brooklyn was fired upon by a battery on Morris Island" - but didn't you just say Brooklyn was not sent? Clarify
Manual of Style edits needed - spell out "%", check hyphen use, etc
Text needs to be more accessible to a non-specialist reader. For example, what is "casemated"? What is the normal size for an artillery company? What are howitzers and smoothbores?
Don't begin sentences with "And". Check text for grammatical errors
- Just a note ... the editors of Chicago disagree with the advice not to start a sentence with conjunctions such as "and" and "but" (at 5.206, with some of the strongest language I've seen in Chicago.) OTOH, I agree that starting a sentence that way often doesn't feel right to me in Wikipedia articles for some reason, and I agree with Nikki that the one "and" that starts a sentence feels out of place in this article. (Also, I'm wondering what that sentence means ... how was one situation similar to the other?) - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Web citations need publisher and retrieval date
Page ranges should use ndashes
Missing bibliographic information for McPherson
Hatcher is in References but not Notes
Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations for multi-author works. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thanks very much for your comments and for pointing out improvements that need to be made. I and other users have addressed them as follows:

Lead: I added a paragraph to the lead regarding the winter "siege" which was, I believe, the only significant part of the article not already summarized.
"The battle lasted…" The ed17 took care of this.
"Revolutionary war" corrected by Hlj
General copy editing for clarity and flow: not sure specifically how to address this. Perhaps once typos, glitches and other fixes have been made, there might be some specific suggestions re: flow.
"South Carolina authorities…" Hlj has added narrative to explain this.
Added unknown author on the file description page
Unable to determine source for the color image so I replaced with a similar image from the collection of the Library of Congress.
re: Star of the West, Hlj took care of this
removed %, added ndashes for page ranges
Added wikilinks and a bit of explanation for specialized terms such as casemates, company, howitzers, smoothbores, and mortars.
Removed "And" and re-worded to clarify re: Fort Pickens
Publisher and retrieval date has been added for web citations
Hlj has taken care of MacPherson and Hatcher references

I believe these fixes address the specific items you listed. If there are additional fixes that you feel need to be made, please let me know. Many thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll be happy to help, but copyediting is generally seen as one of the last steps in the process, and I can't tell with this one whether we're close to the end or right in the middle. I'll try to get a sense of that from reviewers' comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.