User talk:Magicpiano/ArchiveRevWar1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
General Richard Prescott
Thanks for the note on Richard Prescott. I did some digging and now have a good idea of what was happening with the rank but not good enough for wikipedia yet. See the article on Brevet (military) and my questions on it's talk page if interested.
New Zealand is wonderful! Ireland is now on the top of my "To visit" list.
WikiParker (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice work
You've made some excellent (and referenced!) additions the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga. Great work! -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm not quite done yet, but making good progress... Magic♪piano 01:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Richard Montgomery
I fixed the problem you pointed out on the talk page of Richard Montgomery as well as a couple of the tags you placed on it. Do you think it is good enough for GA status? It is lacking in the number sources but there are only two available and they are both cited. Thoughts?-Kieran4 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the job you've done on it is actually pretty good -- the two sources you've used should be OK. Whether the prose is up to snuff is debatable, even after I finish the copyedit. To pick one example (not quite at random, but it illustrates a point), the article has this line:
- On June 8, 1758, the attack on the fort began. Montgomery landed on the beach under heavy fire and ordered his troops to fix bayonets.
- Why mention the bayonets? A bio is a story -- you have to develop plot. Tell why the order was given, and give consequences, if appropriate (did they use the bayonets?). (Or if it's not important, leave it out.)
- When events happen, give reasons why. Who (by name, not "British command") ordered the regiment to go where and why? Set the stage for each major action. You've done a fair amount of this, but there are gaps; a good reviewer is going to notice.
- Have good transitions between sections and paragraphs. Again, this is mostly pretty good, but there are gaps. The one that glared at me was in Early Life, where the transition from school to military is poorly done. I thought about trying to rephrase it because it sounds awkward as written, and I know a reviewer will hit that.
- I only read the article because I wondered how it described the early invasion of Canada, something I'm planning to expand -- there's a great deal that's poorly covered about things like the negotiations the Americans and the British make with the Natives, not to mention the political situation in Quebec.
- I should be finished with the copyedit in the next day or two; I'll remove the tag when I'm done. Magic♪piano 02:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortuntely, my writing ability is nothing out of the ordinary, although I wish it was. Often I find it difficult to keep it flowing, my writing tends to be choppy. At the moment I'm working on the Battle of Princeton but when I finish that(I want to get that to GA status too) I'll go back and fix what you pointed out, as well as reading over the article again and to change anything that I think can be improved. Happy NEw Year's.-Kieran4 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sandbox
- Arnold's Expedition is, of course, better known than Montgomery's because of the difficulties he faced through the wilderness of what would be Maine. However, I would encourage you to create a sperate article simply because it would cover the whole of Montgomery's Campaign and not just seperate parts as there is now. As I own the Shelton book if you'd like me to help I would be willing. On another note, I'm going to get started on what you listed on the talk page for Montgomery. You said you might be able to dig up something, if you can I'd appreciate that.-Kieran4 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
John Brown
It does not say exactly why he did not take part in the engagement but I will quot exactly what the book says.
There, he [Allen] waited for a prearranged signal from Brown of his arrival and readiness to commence the attack. The signal never came. For some reason, Brown and his force failed to make the rendezvous. Shelton p.102-Kieran4 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Other Sources
I checked Shelton where you added the tags on Richard Montgomery and there was no information for what you tagged to be found, and I cannot view the pages where they would be in the Gabriel book. Do you have any other sources.-Kieran4 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will be looking at the Gabriel book at the library (Boston Public has it for in-library use only) sometime this week -- I'll see what he has to say about those things. (I think the item on the court martial can be deleted if we can't figure out the circumstances; it seems to be a non-critical point. It would be good to know who actually promoted him, though.) Magic♪piano 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent work on Fort Ticonderoga!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For perseverance and diligent research, including adding top quality images, and making improvements to Capture of Fort Ticonderoga. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
Great Boston Campaign work
|
The Epic Barnstar | |
| For huge improvements to a series of articles dealing with the Boston_campaign. I created Powder Alarm and Battle of Chelsea Creek and was a major contributor to Battles of Lexington and Concord. Thanks to your work in recent months, these have gone from sorta-lazy-better-than-nothings to fine articles. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Thanks. I had actually been thinking of pinging you at some point that they had gotten some more work. Some of those articles may eventually head for milhist-A and/or FA, when I feel like tackling those processes. Magic♪piano 14:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Gabriel Book
Were you ever able to get the Gabriel book on Montgomery?-Kieran4 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't able to make it last week; I'm currently looking at a library visit Thursday or Friday. Magic♪piano 17:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I spent a few quality hours with Gabriel at the Massachusetts Historical Society today; I think I've got all the answers to the outstanding work tags on the Montgomery page. It'll probably be a few days before I actually can work my notes into the page, though. Magic♪piano 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Pell's Point
Hi. On your peer review for the Battle of Pell's Point you say that it ought to have a map. Can I take them directly from bpl? If so, how can I take a picture of the map?-Kieran4 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- All of the old maps at place like the BPL (also the NYPL, Library of Congress, Canadian Archive, Quebec Archive, French National Archive) are free for the taking, since they are long out of any sort of copyright they might have had. (Look in the Resources page of the ARW task force page -- I put a bunch of links to places like that there.)
- Some of these sites make getting a high-quality image difficult. I get really good blowups of the maps from the BPL collection by zooming in (using their Flash widget) and doing a screen capture; the maps I put on Battle of Longue-Pointe, Battle of the Cedars, and Capture of Fort Ticonderoga were all made that way. (They do offer JPEG download, but the resolution is not as good.) I believe the Library of Congress offers high quality images as JPEG2000 downloads, which can then be cropped (to show your detail) and converted to regular JPEG (I'm not sure WP does JPEG2000).
- (I do all my work on Linux -- screen capture is really easy there. Dunno about Windows.) Magic♪piano 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you haven't already, set up an account on Commons, and upload the images there. Magic♪piano 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was suggesting you actually provide two maps: one that shows the big picture (where the armies are), and this one, which shows the detail. (If necessary, you can also "talk" through the geography in the article or the caption, as I do in Battle of Longue-Pointe.) Magic♪piano 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Gabriel
Thanks. As for the communications between Janet and Richard, I know Gabriel goes more into the personal life of Montgomery than Shelton does so that would be a better option. I do, however, remember reading in Shelton that Andrew Jackson invited Janet to dine with him when he was in the Hudson Valley once. It was something along those lines, I'll go back and look to make sure it is 100% correct. I'm leaving tonight so maybe I'll do some work today, but I won't be back until Wednesday. I'd almost say, after doing some work on it, go ahead and nominate it for GA or A class. Maybe get a PR too.-Kieran4 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
New York and New Jersey campaign
There was actually a time when I did really seriously think about working on the New York and New Jersey campaign and I do plan to get back to that time period after I finish James K. Polk. I've been a little tied up in real life recently but I do plan to get back to editing more in a few weeks.-Kieran4 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Portal links
Excuse me. I tried to work in the same way of the Portal:British Empire, a featured portal, and you could see the same portal link directly in its main article (Do you know why?). I didn't know this page. Thank you to advise me about that. In french version of Wikipedia, the portal links is in the main article, not in talk page. That's what I made this mistake. Sorry for my poor english too... JF Lepage (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Congrats!
Congratulations on the FA status for the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga. I know you have been working hard on that article for several months! Great work! -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! There are a few more articles headed that way; the place has a history I find interesting. Magic♪piano 02:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing your article, Battle of Valcour Island for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Battle of Valcour Island/GA1. I took the liberty of doing a little copy editing but don't hesitate to revert any changes that you don't like. The article is well written and close to a GA as is but can be improved a little. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am also reviewing Arnold Expedition and have left some comments at Talk:Arnold Expedition/GA1. Please don't feel pressured that I am reviewing two at once as I am not going to hold you to any time limit. I feel very confident that both of these articles are GA material. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Burning of Falmouth
Hi there! I noticed what appears to be substantially your article at GA review. It's an interesting article, with (imho) only a few very minor stylistic issues. I was about to make some changes, then thought better of it and posted here instead. Can we continue at the article talk-page? Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that your nomination for FA Fort Ticonderoga has three "support"s. I am fearful that you are giving up on it for some reason. It is an excellent article and I think it will pass. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I had meant to get to your comment today, but I see you and Mav have been by. (I'm also still figuring out the whole FAC thing, this is only my second one...) Thanks for your support! Magic♪piano 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I was doing a little copy editing, making sure the dates were the same format and such. I hope I didn't undo anything you were doing. I am reviewing the article for GA, and I will wait until you are done before I start in. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In the past you've copyedited this article once. It has however failed the recent FAC nomination due to objections that this article has not been sufficiently copyedited before and that there are some "prose issues". I'd like to ask you to consider copyediting it again (I am not an native speaker of English so I cannot spot those "prose issues" myself). Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'll give it a go, but fair warning that I'm not the world's best judge of what makes writing worthy of criterion 1a. Magic♪piano 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing Battle of Ticonderoga for GA and have left one comment at Talk:Battle of Ticonderoga (1777)/GA1 that has to do with British/American spelling. The article is easily GA. I know that you are busy with FAC so don't feel you have to take care of this immediately. Regarding FAC, that editor brings up image concerns on all the FACs, so don't feel singled out or that you cannot address his concerns. At worst, you may have to remove some images. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not overly concerned about the image thing, it's mainly just a hassle. I'd rather not have to pull the Ogden image, but I will if the research indicates it should go. I'll get back to this article sometime in the next day or two. Magic♪piano 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Coming soon, the next in the series... Magic♪piano 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Battle of Fort Cumberland
Should I unGAN it? Bernstein2291 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I unGANed it, and I changed it back to start class. Bernstein2291 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am considering translating fr:Siège de Québec de 1759 and fr:Bataille de Beauport immediately, even though they are not yet to the level I wish to bring them. The structure is OK, most of the reference notes are from an English-language book anyway. Can I count on you for copy-editing my inadequate English?
The reason I am considering this is because the English Wikipedia has a bigger and more organized community and I think the articles are likely to improve faster there and these possible improvements I can easily port back to the French side after.
Thanks! -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mais certainement. Considering one is non-existent and the other is a stub, that would be a fine idea. (De-stubbing most of the French and Indian War is on my longer-term list of things to look at.)
- I will be able to assist you there I hope: I purchased several books on the subject recently. I borrowed C.P. Stacey's Quebec, 1759: The Siege and The Battle from the library to write these two articles but I had to return it two weeks ago. It is good enough that I will definitely buy myself a copy of it. I am also planning to get a copy of the French translation of it that is expected this year. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- In the short term, you might want to watch Samuel de Champlain. I've done some copyediting (with more to come) to improve the English (which looks like it was written by people who's English is worse than yours), but it's bad enough at times that I'm not sure I always have the sense right. (It probably could use a content overhaul too, but that's not something I really want to tackle.) Magic♪piano 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am done translating User:Mathieugp/drafts/Siege of Quebec (1759). Regarding Samuel de Champlain, I find it inappropriate that it opens up on a "discussion" (mostly unsourced) of his non-nobility. What do you think about moving this under a "Social status" section or something along those lines? -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try to get to it in the next few days. My brief look at Champlain biographic materials leads me to believe the article is significantly deficient from factual as well as structural views. The discussion of non-nobility in the lead is just one example of a structural problem; the lack of significant mention of his marriage, and no mention of the fact that there is historiographic controversy over whether or not he really went to the Caribbean are factual ones. Magic♪piano 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit! I have just ordered Quebec, 1759: The Siege and The Battle online. When I have it, I will be able to restore the original English quotes and address all the comments that you have left in User:Mathieugp/drafts/Siege of Quebec (1759).
I am done translating the shorter User:Mathieugp/drafts/Battle of Beauport. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I received my copy of Stacey's last week. It is the 2002 edition and it contains some additional material including enough details on the armies to write up a proper Order of battle at the Siege of Quebec in 1759. I guess I have enough material to publish it, but again I wanted someone to check the language before I do it. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me (certainly good enough for mainspace at this point). One point to note: many of the names (people names, regiment names, ship names) will need to be carefully examined. Some of the them are obvious DAB links (or likely link to the wrong person), like George Scott and Simon Fraser. Others, notably the regimental links, may be unobviously wrong, due to renaming and renumbering of regiments over time. It will be necessary at some point to go through those links with some care to make sure they link to the regiment that had the given number at that time. And links to named regiments, like Bragg's in the 2nd brigade, should link to the actual officer the regiment is named for. None if this should interfere with publishing (although I'd wait until you're ready to publish the main article). Nice job. Magic♪piano 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref desk
Someone on the ref desk has asked a question about the Siege of Boston, which is probably up your alley. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations
A few days behind the times with this; I don't haunt FPC very closely. Your final post was very flattering. Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 18:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have left some initial comments at Talk:Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery. As usual, you write very well. However, I do find the article a bit difficult to understand because there are so many different names in a very condensed article about American and British history. I'm sure, per usual, you can straighten me out as you have in some of your past articles! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have passed Battle of Hubbardton as a GA. Very nice article. Congratulations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Review Animated Maps of Revolutionary War campaigns?
Hello Magicpiano, I am developing a series of animated map sequences on the Revolutionary War (each takes about 250 hours). I strive for absolute accuracy and was impressed by your work on the Saratoga Campaign (is causing me to rethink some things for the Saratoga Campaign which I am working on now). As I reach the point of completion for Saratoga, I was thinking to add it as an external link to wiki for the campaign and wanted to be sure that it was accurate before I did so. You can see other work at RevolutionaryWarAnimated.com. This is entirely non-profit, non-self-promotional. I do it because I love to do it. I believe the animations can help greatly with an understanding of campaigns as they can show the element of time with motion best. Would you be willing to look at the Saratoga Campaign for me - probably in a week? At any time you would like a review/second opinion of any of your work, I would be most glad to reciprocate. (I am also a lover of Celtic music) Thank you.....Freeman 14:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George11Williams (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I might be interested in giving you feedback, but you will have to put sound controls on your animations first. There is no way I will subject myself to that background music while analyzing your content. (This is something you should do anyway, since your sounds may interfere with other sounds already playing on the user's computer.) Magic♪piano 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That in itself is valuable feedback. I will incorporate. Freeman 15:29, 9 June 2009
Hello I finally completed the Saratoga Campaign animation (including Ticonderoga). If you have a chance to take a look and provide feedback, it would be greatly appreciated. I have not added sound yet and will make that optional when I do. [1] You can email any comments to George11Willliams@gmail.com. Thank you in advance. I will be unavailable on a bicycle ride for a couple of weeks. Freeman 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Request for review
About 5 months ago Kieran4 and I worked on the Battle of Long Island article, and turned it from a Start class article to a Good article. Now I think that it may be ready to become A-class, but I don't want to submit it until I get a third party opinion. I thought that you would be the most qualified, because of your extensive work on revolutionary articles. Would you review it for me and tell me how I could improve it? I would really appreciate it. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 03:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Machias
Please see my changes to Battle of Machias and my comments on the Talk page. I am unsure how to handle some needed changes, so I will wait until tomorrow. Reply on the Talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Benedict Arnold: the Canadian Connection
Found a reference you might be interested in; Quigley, Louis (2000). Benedict Arnold: the Canadian Connection. Riverview, New Brunswick: Queue Publishing. ISBN 9780968701003. OCLC 47908325. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help) HairyWombat (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Closure of GA nom for Battle of White Marsh
Hello, Magicpiano. I must admit, I didn't even notice that anyone did the GA review on the Battle of White Marsh article, of which I've been the primary editor for a couple of years. I noticed that you closed the nom yesterday, due to lack of reaction. I'd appreciate if you'd reopen and let me address the issues over the next week or so. I'm certain I can get the few minor issues resolved, and we can get this article to GA. In any case, let me know. Thanks in advance! Alphageekpa (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem, but you ought to keep track of these things... just resubmit it to GA and leave me a note, I'll pick it up again. Magic♪piano 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks! Alphageekpa (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Ethan Allen FAC
What do you think? Would you support it at this time? I know you're a major contributor to the article, do you have any thoughts on the matter? Please reply on my talk page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I should've done this earlier... sorry for the lateness. Outback the koala (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Brick wall at BNA
Dear Magicpiano,
Could you take a look at my edits here and the related discussion? The experience of trying to discuss with these people is verging on the surreal. Is it possible to tell why exactly I'm being reverted? Albrecht (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, since I usually try to be diplomatic, here's my take:
- Once your merge was reverted, you should have gone to the talk page (WP:BRD and all that) since somebody obviously cared. In fact, you really ought to propose a merge before doing it in any event -- I've done this on even underwatched articles, just for form's sake.
- Some of your points clearly have merit, but you should buttress each of them (even if you think they're obvious) with reliable sources. Since the article is presently unsourced, this puts the onus of refutation on them.
- Bilcat's complaints that people keep changing numbers will go away (or become more tractable) if the numbers (I include years in that designation) are cited.
- Given that the atmosphere is somewhat poisoned, I'd pull back for a week, then propose individual issues in sequence. (e.g. first argue the issue of religion, or the dates, or the geography, before making changes). It's harder to do than reverting issue trolls, who never bring sources to the table. Magic♪piano 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Bunker Hill
Great changes re: Small and Bunker Hill. I'll added categories for Small and check reference for Battle of Bloody Creek. --Hantsheroes (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Hantsheroes
Broussard was not at the Battle of Bloody Creek - I made a mistake because his name was mentioned in the "Prelude" to the battle. Good edit.--Hantsheroes (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC) hantsheroes
GAN of Ambush of Geary
Hi there, I'm just dropping a note that I've finished to review of Ambush of Geary, which you can see here. I've placed the article on hold for seven days see you can address the minor issues I've brought up. After they are resolved, I'll gladly pass the article. Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I have Washington's crossing of the Delaware River on hold for GAN here. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I passed the article and I recommend that the article should be copyedited. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ethan Allen
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ethan Allen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. –Grondemar 21:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I finally completed my review and placed the article
on hold. Please see the GA review page for details, and sorry for taking so long. –Grondemar 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review: Battle of Nassau
Review ready at Talk:Battle of Nassau/GA1. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have reviewed Battle of Machias and placed it on hold for seven days with several concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Battle of Machias/GA1. Canadian Paul 01:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Forage War
The article Forage War you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Forage War for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Battle of The Cedars congrats!
Congrats on the Battle of The Cedars's promotion to FA! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Valcour Island
I would be more than happy to justify my actions, the category "Naval battles involving the United States" is not for individual naval battles. There is already a category called "Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War", that is where the Valcour Island battle belongs, not in the other. Take a look at the first category I mentioned, in it you will find several sub categories and only the naval battles the U.S. fought while not at war. The naval engagements the U.S. fights during a war belong in the specific categories, in this case only the category "Naval battles of the American Revolutionary war" should be used for the Battle of Valcour Island. I will remove the other category now. (for the third time)--Az81964444 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Every naval battle of the revolutionary war involved the british, none of the other British aligned combatants had naval forces.XavierGreen (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I reviewed your GA nomination and left a few comments at Talk:Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1775-1776/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I currently have this article up for featured article review and they are looking for someone uninvolved to edit the wording and syntax of the first paragraph of the background section. I was wondering if you'd be interested?XavierGreen (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at that, i added a citation to support your changes.XavierGreen (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
23rd Continental Regiment
You created 23rd Continental Regiment as a redirect to itself; it's now been changed to point to 2nd New Hampshire Regiment. Chzz ► 21:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Valcour Island
Hey, I added this image to Battle of Valcour Island because it's easier to understand and more clear than the other two maps. Can you explain why you reverted my edit?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then you should have replaced the existing maps. As it was, you placed a map that was (1) a near-duplicate of a directly adjacent map, and (2) added in a poorly-formatted way (causing bunching of text) to (3) an article currently at WP:FAC.
- I will respectfully disagree on which is easier to understand. In order to really understand either, you have to click to get the larger version on the image page; the text is marginally readable in both cases. The new map shows Indians on the shorelines, but this is not distinguishable in thumbnail. The old map shows Arnold's escape route, and clearly fits with the larger map, also shown, from which it is extracted.
- If you wanted to be really helpful, you might create SVG versions of the maps you're adding with larger writing and symbols, so that they're more readable at thumbnail size. I would get behind that has a significant improvement to the old map. Magic♪piano 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, do you know where I can learn how to make SVGs of maps? I know you need Inkscape but I need like a solid tutorial or teacher. btw I left the image on the article's talk page--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I found the tutorials that come with Inkscape to be somewhat helpful, although it does require some experimentation and practice to get decent results, especially if you're trying to replicate an existing map with nice smooth curves. I had to make map tracings for the maps in Battle of The Cedars; you can import existing images into one layer and then draw lines over them on another layer. (I figured the maps for Valcour Island were "good enough", but Cedars and some other minor actions just don't have good maps.) Magic♪piano 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Great Work!
I've been watching your updates to the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge. Awesome job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs) 13:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Otho Holland Williams
Hello Magicpiano,
I have:
- Added additional references and footnotes (at least one to every paragraph as you suggested)
- Removed any mentioning of Williams "fortune" since I couldn't find a source which states any fortune whatsoever
- Removed myrevolutinoarywar.com as a reference and replaced it with a more reliable one
- Fixed the "first last|title last" issue
I also reworded the sentence of General Lincoln's time in Charleston as "was located" rather than "taken refuge". I've assimilated most of the one word paragraphs with the surrounding text, though there is one which is particularly difficult to remove. The sentence at the end of the "Battle of Eutaw Springs" section states "Near the close of the War, he was sent by General Greene with dispatches to congress and on May 9, 1782 promoted to Brigadier General." I have scoured my references and have found no material which could bulk up this sentence. It is also hard to combine it with the text in that particular section since it doesn't discuss the Battle of Eutaw Springs.
Also, are additional modern sources absolutely necessary for the article? If they are, I have been going to my local library often in the past few weeks, so it would be possible for me to look there. Still though, would a shortage of modern sources affect the credibility or ultimately the article's current rating as a Good Article?
Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
Battle of Bunker Hill
Re: reversion of recent edits in the Battle of Bunker Hill article. I understand that WP:MOSNUM does not require the year in all dates, however it does suggest consistency in dates used in an article, and it also suggests that years may be left off if the year is otherwise obvious (ex: the year is included in the article title). The years were added because some dates had years and some did not, making the article inconsistent. It is also not obvious what year the event took place, especially if the reader scans the article rather than read the entire text in detail. Shouldn't we at least try to be consistently informative for the benefit of our readers? Truthanado (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:MOSNUM states that the way dates are presented be consisted -- that you not mix "day month" and "month day" formats. This is independent of whether or not years are needed. In this article, the only year of importance is presented (several times) near the beginning of the article. While the current revision does not again present years in the text until after the action is described (all of which takes places in the same year), it is legibly visible in some of the maps accompanying the text further on. If this isn't enough for you, IMHO you're reading too fast. Four of the years I removed were from two adjacent paragraphs; if I was to put a year somewhere in one of them, I would not have chosen any of the places you put them.
- Furthermore, with all due respect, your recent edit history does not seem to include very many articles of this sort. Perhaps you should scan a number of featured articles (as rapidly as you did this one) about battles and see how dates are handled in them. The density with which you added them, where all of the dates in the article through the end of the action description are in the year 1775, was clearly over the top. Magic♪piano 00:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Cowpens
Can you evaluate this edit? I haven't studied the revolutionary war so I'm not sure if I was wrong in reverting it the last time.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I try to avoid infobox edit wars on the decisiveness of battles. Magic♪piano 17:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Combatants American Revolution
Someone added the Polish Lithuanian Commonweath to the list of combatants, i am unaware of any combat actions involving poland-lithuania during the revolution nor am i aware of any declaration of war by them against the uk or any other hostile action taken by their government. I think it should be removed from the list, how about you?XavierGreen (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Probably some sort of reference to Pulaski (sort of like changing Lafayette's allegiance to France, even though both fought with Continental commissions), not appropriate. Magic♪piano 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your addition to the Paul Revere article. I was just reading this in a reference source and was thinking about adding it. Good Job! You deserve a falafel!
Amadscientist (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well....at least the article is being improved and worked on in earnest! The article seems to be benefiting from at least that much! Woohoo!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd had some intent to improve it (at least the parts I knew well on the ride), this was just a spur. Most of what I added is copied with minor changes from Battles of Lexington and Concord. Magic♪piano 01:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe! I read this during my research about the "Warning" Revere is said to have given the British. But I gotta say....I didn't add it on purpose only because in my view I didn't think it was relevant and made me feel like I was just adding to the fire. Better for it to come from you. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd had some intent to improve it (at least the parts I knew well on the ride), this was just a spur. Most of what I added is copied with minor changes from Battles of Lexington and Concord. Magic♪piano 01:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I thought it was important that what actually happened be accurately conveyed, given this whole brouhaha. It doesn't hurt that Fischer is a fairly unimpeachable source. Magic♪piano 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You are a king in my book Magic! Neutrality in editing is THE most important part of our duties as editors. Not taking sides and including information that is properly sourced with reliable references is how we should always work. You are a better editor than I! You deserve major kudos! Now....how the hell is any of this news worthy? Oh well.....at least Wiener's press conference today distracted from the whole Palin/Revere life struggle. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Amadscientist (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the Fischer citation that the colonists would have considered themselves British subjects, it seems to me that the citation would be better if it stated pp. 109-110 rather than simply p. 110, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priodontes (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What's the matter with you. editing Wikipedia for political reasons
Bah. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.229.233 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- umm, yeah sure. Whatever. You have no idea what my motives are. Magic♪piano 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Odd that all of the sudden you and others would be trying to force the idea that the colonist were British in here after Palin flubbed her American History hmm? You can't rewrite the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yensider (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- umm, yeah sure. It's also "odd" that the Paul Revere article is the subject of a todo. Magic♪piano 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Magicpiano, the majority of the inhabitants of the colonies were African, French, Scots, Irish, German, native American, et al, and could NOT have considered themselves British. Most colonists had never set foot in Britain, by 1775 some settlers already had four generations in the Americas.
Fischer is wrong in assuming that only white, wealthy males mattered. That's the idea behind, "the colonists saw themselves as British." His racist attempt at mind-reading denies the existence of hundreds of thousands of non-British colonial inhabitants. Please undo his cultural and racial bias, it has no place in a supposedly neutral Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States
9tmaxr (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fischer actually qualified his statement (limiting it to Massachusetts colonists), something I omitted, but others have since corrected. According to Hart's Commonwealth History of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts population was predominantly English in character until the 19th century (see full citation in Massachusetts Bay Colony). Hart is an older source (published 1927), so I'm not sure how much to trust his demographics.
- If you feel there is bias needing to be corrected, how about you do some work, and provide the sources documenting what Massachusetts population demographics were at the time? I'm not stopping you or anyone else from adding well-sourced information to the article. Magic♪piano 12:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- According to this source (JSTOR access required), the demographics of Massachusetts white population in the 1790 census were: English 82.0% Scotch 4.4% Ulster 2.6% Irish Free State 1.6% German 0.3% Others 9.4%. Magic♪piano 13:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- 9tmaxr -- according to the Wikipedia page you referenced, the population of the entire United States in 1790 was 2100000 / 3900000 == 54% English. I imagine in 1775 the makeup was similar. Thus, it doesn't appear to be true that "the majority of the inhabitants of the colonies" were other than English. And in any case, the article in question is not talking about the entirety of the colonies, but about the area specifically where Paul Revere was riding. You're right that by the late 1700s, most people living in the colonies were born there. This doesn't necessarily imply that they didn't consider themselves English or British! Eddiekuns (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Magicpiano, thanks for clarifying the regional aspect of Fischers' claim. I still think it's bunk, tho. The demographics records for that era are a joke. According to that chart, American Indians didn't exist in the colonies. I suspect they MAY HAVE numbered slightly higher than the ZERO counted by whatever WASP compiled the stats. On to the perceptions of the colonists:
I may SEE myself as royalty, that doesn't make me king. The colonists may have SEEN THEMSELVES as ballerinas, that doesn't mean they could dance "Swan Lake." The Crown didn't see American colonists as full British citizens, or they would have given them representative seats in Parliament and the House of Lords to go with all those lovely taxes they paid. Colonists had all the responsibilities of Britons with none of the advantages. King George considered the colonists a bunch of dirty, backwards savages who worked his plantations in the New World, and he treated them accordingly. So, in reality, the colonists were treated as King George's slaves. Protesters saw their property confiscated, they were jailed, mutilated, banished, deported, pressed into service, whipped, shot and hanged. Colonists had a choice to make: They could be loyal slaves, or they could feed their children.
The majority of Mass. colonists in 1775 were born in America, which makes them American. Fischer's attempt at time-travel mind-reading pretends everybody, even the Amerindians in the Mass. colony either saw themselves as British (ridiculous), or he pretends they didn't exist. Neither notion is neutral or accurate.
But most importantly, if the Mass. colonists had seen themselves as British, they would NEVER have joined in the American Revolution.
The Mass. colonists were not British citizens, most never were. By moving to the King's colonies, they had become Crown property, and their children were his property as well. They may not yet have REALIZED they were Americans, but that doesn't mean they were British. Britain was just the country that took their sweat, blood and money and gave them nothing in return. That's slavery, not a national identity.
The colonists were a people without a country, an entire nation of Nathan Hales. People who see themselves as citizens don't take up arms against their king. There may have been enough Royalist symps and spies to make Revere cautious, but by 1775, the king's policies had clear-cut most of his loyal "trees," leaving only a newly-sprouted forest of disloyal rabble, preaching treason and plotting to export rattlesnakes to Britain! (Doesn't Ben Franklin kick ass?)
They may have experienced some cognitive dissonance, 'Who are we now, if not British subjects?' but seeing one's friends mowed down by Redcoats clarifies the mind wonderfully. Revere shouted the "Regulars" were coming, not to differentiate the Lobsterbacks from his American friends and neighbors, but to specify the King's imminent and grave military threat to their lives and freedom.
Fischer is wrong, demographically, psychologically and politically. His biased, ethnocentric conclusions have no place in a neutral article.
9tmaxr (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- All maybe good and well, but it is all your opinion. Until you actually bring some suitable sources to substantiate the factual elements of this screed, it is nothing more. You might start by substantiating this pair of sentences: "The Mass. colonists were not British citizens, most never were. By moving to the King's colonies, they had become Crown property, and their children were his property as well." Magic♪piano 17:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Playing Devil's Advocate...
It appears that the reference book:Paul Revere's ride By David Hackett Fischer delves very deep into discussions of critisim of Revere for talking to his British captures. I actually found this while researching whether or not this would have been the case and it does appear to have been mentioned. I would not be willing to add weight to the actual opinion, but...perhaps it is worth mentioning. I will continue to look further as I believe it may well merit addition.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that a section on "Reputation", that includes relocating the Wadsworth material now in the "Midnight Ride" section, could include some of Fischer's historiography. You have to be careful with this, though: some of what's there is Fischer's opinion, and needs to be presented as such. (I'd normally call such a section "Legacy", but that might give pro/con Palin partisans ideas.) Magic♪piano 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, careful is a good word. LOL! But it is actually just a starting point. At least Fischer is presenting all the material. He does have an opinion of it, but I am not even close to being ready to add anything yet. I still want to locate a few more references and perhaps Bissell's actual writing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Then the result sections of the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, etc. should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.58.198 (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
American Revolutionary War
You said that normally the result box only includes the treaties. Taking a quick browse through some war articles I immediately noticed that is not the case. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.58.198 (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
- It takes two to tango, but I never should have templated someone I respect so much as a Wikipedian. It was a stupid thing to do, and I make no excuses. At the time I did it, I was thinking about maintaining civility even when dealing with disruption. I felt ungood after I added this, and wanted to remove it. Perhaps clear the air between us. I'm sorry, and hope you will forgive me. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- No hard feelings. I was on the edge and knew it. Magic♪piano 00:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
1st Rhode Island Regiment
Thank you for fixing the 1st Rhode Island Regiment article. I've been bitten by the ARW bug and recently noticed that it was virtually identical to the 2nd Rhode Island Regiment article. I just bought a copy of Robert K. Wright, Jr.'s Continental Army and was about to go to work. Djmaschek (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that too (been working on Battle of Rhode Island). Darn vandals... Magic♪piano 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
1740 Batavia massacre
You may be interested in looking at 1740 Batavia massacre again; it's been expanded about half over since you did the peer review. No luck in finding who led the troops though! Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
American Revolution
"Revert per comment you didn't read" is what you said for this . However please refrain from restoring flase information and know that I reccommend you look at Lafayette's wiipedia page and it says that he was from the Kingdom of France. First of all, I remember going to school and hearing my Social Studiesteacher say "George Washington also was helped by a person from the Kingdom of France, Marquis de Lafayette, and seond of all, I also recall taking a test in 4th grade about the revolutionary war when I came across the question that asked "Was Lafayette from France, Spain, Britain, or Portugal?". I answered "France" and I got it right (I still have the test). I don't get how Lafayette could be an American when he was born in Chavaniac, France. ImhotepBallZ (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- The comment you didn't read is in the American Revolutionary War article, before Lafayette's flag. It says:
- Lafayette, although he was French, was commissioned into the Continental Army. Edits changing this flag to the French flag will be reverted.
- The flags represent the commander's allegiance, not nationality. Since Lafayette's held an American commission, he gets an American flag. If you disagree, feel free to open a discussion on the subject at WT:MILHIST. Magic♪piano 04:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
My friend, I've read your response, but let's see what happens. But I saw the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImhotepBallZ (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi MagicPiano. I have just noticed that around twelve months ago you made some major amendments to the above article. I have to point out that you have added a great deal that, I expect, is good -
but you have wiped out the rest of the topic after around 1776 and instead introduced from Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online a whole lot of people who did not hold that post. Shouldn't they be in their own article?
Not today but I will replace the people you have accidentally omitted and if its OK with you delete all the interlopers. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding, from reading not just the DCB entries but also reprints of some of the relevant commissions, is that the title "Commander-in-Chief, North America" ended with General Gage. If you have evidence to the contrary (i.e. sources), I'd like to see it.
- If you want to split off the other posts into separate articles, feel free to do so; just ensure that the successor and predecessor titles are mentioned. I resisted doing so because I think there is casual confusion (as evidenced by the state of the page before I picked it up) calling the CinC Canadas as the CinC NA when that's not technically so. Magic♪piano 02:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Umm, the commissions are "British records". (I can't presently find the link where I read them -- I believe they were from Canadian archive reprints on Google Books, but my Google-fu is failing me.) What other "British records" are you proposing need to be consulted? Magic♪piano 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I expect the commissions are British records but they will be those relating just to Canada in the same way as perhaps records in the Philippines when USA ran the Philippines may differ from those of the USA about the Philippines over the same period (with the Philippines I'm onto a subject I know nothing about). I'm not suggesting your reporting in the article is of itself wrong. I am suggesting (erm . . . , telling you) it does not match with the topic of the article because your reporting is limited to Canada. Should I expand further on this? The website supplied as a reference for the article before your amendments no longer seems to be able to give any information. I plan to show you the correct answers as soon as I can. In the meantime it is easy to find enough to show you are wrong (in the way I have described) but for both you and me as well as WP I'd like to find complete and conclusive evidence. Can you not see that a Canadian source is not a British source? Eddaido (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly true that British sources (like say the Army Lists) are not Canadian. Given that I spent not much more than 3 days on expanding the article, it's hardly surprising there might be holes in my research. Feel free to add properly sourced content -- it's not like the article is (or ever really was) a big priority to me. Magic♪piano 20:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Simele Massacre revisited
Hi there, as promised the article went a major editing the last few months, and I think it does meet the GA criteria now. Could you take a look at it before I re-nominate it once more. Do you have any recommendations for a future FA nomination? Thanks.--Rafy talk 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you are too busy to review the article I will go ahead and nominate it again. I thought it would be more fitting if someone with previous knowledge, like yourself, re-evaluates it again. Regards.--Rafy talk 12:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Magicpiano, this is a notice to let you know that 1740 Batavia massacre, which you have previously reviewed or copyedited, has been nominated at FAC. Should you be willing to review the article, feedback is welcome at the nomination page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I happened to read some of your articles of the Queen Anne's War, and felt that it deserved to be nominated as a Good Topic on the list. I've on the lookout for more History-related subjects to be added on there, and think your work on it is more than deserving to be listed there. Since it's not my articles, and I'm only familiar with two of the battles there, I needed to contact the person who was the main editor and ask permission. Contact me as soon as you can, and thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I did a whole lot of work on articles related to Queen Anne's War with the goal of eventually creating a Good Topic, but ran into some roadblocks. A Good Topic would have to include all of the articles listed in {{Campaignbox Queen Anne's War}}, and there are sources relating to the non-GA articles in that campaignbox that I don't have access to. This mostly affects the Newfoundland actions (which are dependent on 19th century sources that need checking against modern scholarship), but the Charles Town expedition also has some minor factuals issues I've not been able to resolve to my satisfaction. (I've also not delved at all into Northeast Coast Campaign, which was created by another editor and needs significant work to bring up to GA. It's poorly written and heavily dependent on one early 19th century source.)
- I guess I'm saying I would oppose such a nomination at this time (or at least I'm quite dubious a nomination would gain traction in the process). If you are interested in pursuing this, and have access to libraries containing works of use to addressing the above issues, I could pick up my activities in that space again (and detail some of the specific problems that held the project up). Magic♪piano 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, then. I didn't realize all of them had to be nominated. Must have read over that. I might be able to look up the information, but it wouldn't be immediate (the next 2-4 weeks at least). Thanks for letting me know, and I will contact you back whenever I get the chance to do follow up on that. LeftAire (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Possible interview
My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened over the week following her comments. I have been very impressed with the work you have done on the entry in general and your leadership during the edit war. I noticed you also live in Massachusetts and have been invited to the meet up this weekend. I am planning on attending. I would love to talk with you if you are attending as well. I really want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. If not at the meet up, then maybe we can arrange another date to meet or, if necessary, do the interview virtually. You can get back to me on my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. LibraryGurl (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Your expertise needed on the topic of Revere-Palin brouhaha last June
Hi, a graduate student named Sara contacted me, and she was seeking input about what happened in the days after the Palin comment drew huge traffic to the Paul Revere article. I was one of the contributors obviously but there were many more, and I think her thesis is about how wikibattling played out in that particular episode. If possible, consider contacting her by email at librarygurl (AT) gmail (DOT) com.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm back about one of the Queen Anne's War Articles
I've added a few citations where needed for the Charles Town expedition article, and think that it's ready for a GA nomination, compared to the others. I'm very late on my original response towards assisting on helping out on improving the pages, but I aim to keep my promise. I might be able to add a few more citations to the other pages that need that GA nomination. And I could be of assisstance if needed during the GA nominations towards the citations I added. Contact me back when you get the chance, and thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. Just be aware that I will be away from WP (traveling IRL) for most of the next 2.5 weeks, and will not be able to substantively assist in the handling the GA nom if it gets picked up in that time. Magic♪piano 00:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If you're still working on Boston Campaign articles, the report is in from the National Park Service funded researchers who "reconstructed battle events and the historic landscape to define and interpret the battle and narrowed the search area for the remains of HMS Diana." I think the new report opens up the possibility for huge improvements to this little article. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was aware they were looking for the Diana; thanks for the pointer. Magic♪piano 20:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Saint Johns (correction to Acadia wikipage)
Thanks for the correction, and the explanation - I did not know that; now I do! --Spray787 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |