Talk:68th New York Infantry Regiment/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * ext links all report as working;
 * per this, the images are lacking alt text. It is not a requirement for GA (and it won't affect the result of this review), however, you may consider adding it in at some stage);
 * the automatic copyright tools are not working now, but I've undertaken a number of Google search spot checks and couldn't find any evidence of copyright violations, so it looks fine to me in this regard.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in terms of prose, the quality is quite good in my opinion, and I have no major concerns in this regard. One point to consider is the size of some of the paragraphs. Many are quite long and probably could be broken up somewhat, although it is not a major issue for me and won't affect the result of this review;
 * there is some inconsistency between the title in infobox and the title of the article. I think that this should be consistent (probably easiest just to change the infobox to read "68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment";
 * there is some inconsistency in the date format used. For instance compare the dates in the infobox ("22 July 1861"), to that in "Raising the regiment" section ("July 22, 1861"). Either way is fine, IMO, but consistency is the key. Would you mind tweaking the article in this regard?
 * is this correct: "With Kleefish dead and Betge having resigned, command of the division fell temporarily to Major Carl von Wedell" (specifically, "division"? I think it should be "regiment");
 * there is some inconsistency in the use of capital letters: e.g. compare "in the XI Corps's 3rd brigade" and "4th brigade of the new corps" to "shifted to the XI Corps's 1st Brigade" (specifically caps for "Brigade" - it should be consistent. I suggest using a capital, as in this case "brigade" is probably part of a proper noun);
 * you might consider adding a convert template here: "Traveling 1800 miles by rail, the 68th..." (some readers won't be able to conceptualise "miles", so adding the convert template will present the distance in both miles and kilometres);
 * I think I've remedied these. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Generally very well referenced, however, there are a couple of sentences that seem uncited:
 * In the "Raising the regiment" section: "He was not convicted, and was permitted to return to the regiment";
 * In the "Gettysberg" section: "n the thick of the action for two out of three days, the 68th lost more men at Gettysburg than in any other battle."
 * Gettysburg is cited. The other was harder. I found a newspaper article that talks about the case against Betge falling apart, but nothing yet that explicitly says he was acquitted.  We know he was still commanding the regiment after the court martial.  I'll keep looking after the rest of these are fixed.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No dramas, I'm happy with how you've dealt with this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article seems quite broad in its coverage and I'm fairly confident that you've covered everything necessary, however, could you please state whether you've researched the following points:
 * did any members of the regiment receive the Medal of Honor?
 * was the unit re-raised after the war, or is its history included in the lineage of any current units?
 * I've found no connection with other units after the war. There was one soldier, Abraham Cohn, who served with the 68th, was mustered out after falling ill, and later rejoined the army with the 6th New Hampshire.  He won the Medal of Honor while serving with the 6th, not the 68th.  I'm not sure whether to include him, since his notable actions were with another unit.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You could possibly mention him if you have sources, but it wouldn't be absolutely necessary. At the most, a small sentence would probably suffice if it was to be included. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Article is stable, no issues.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * good use of images to illustrate the article;
 * Although I'm confident that all the images are public domain, I'm slightly concerned about the "date" listed on the description page of some the images. Currently it appears to be using the date of upload, but my understanding is that it should be the date that the image was taken. Given that the images are currently using a licence that is relying on pre 1923 publication, it needs to be able to demonstrate this. If it is not exactly known what date the image was taken, my advice would be to use an estimate. For instance, with "File:Bourry de Ivernois.jpg", my suggestion would be to write "c. 1863". (A good example is "File:Felix Salm-Salm - Brady-Handy.jpg");
 * I changed the dates. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article is in quite good shape in my opinion and should have no dramas passing for GA. However, there are a couple of things that I think need to be tweaked, or explained before completing the review. Good work so far, and I look forward to discussing these issues further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the changes you've made, so I will pass the article now. I see no reason why you couldn't take it higher if you are keen. Well done and keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)