Talk:Moses Van Campen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cdtew (talk · contribs) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to review; I will have comments here shortly.  Cdtew  (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working through this still; I apologize, as RL has gotten in the way this weekend. One thing I'll note though, is that I believe it is more helpful to the reader to break down your cites so that each identifies the pages from which you derived the cited information. I think I've suggested before tha you use the sfn template; this isn't mandatory, just a helpful note, and it will certainly help if you take this article further. I hope to have all my grammar/style notes done by tomorrow.    Cdtew  (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments - First, let me give you kudos for working on what is essentially a local history project. I'm a huge proponent of local history on Wikipedia, and believe that, provided WP:GNG is met, local figures, places, and events deserve just as much attention and care as national ones. I'm also a Colonial America editor, and I pursue subjects similar to this on a regular basis from a "meta' standpoint. I always think it's important to think about things from both the forest and tree perspective (for instance, it's important to know and think about what was going on in the Continental Army's campaign against the British concurrently with the events of Van Campen's life, so that you have adequate and well-informed perspective).  That being said, I think this article presents you with some unique challenges, mainly involving (a) sourcing, (b) one-sided information (especially re: Native Americans), and (c) the relative importance of his life's events (more on that when I talk about your need to "summarize" more).
 * First problem -- The infobox says born in 1752, the lead says born in 1757, and the article says he died at age 92 in 1849 (meaning he had to have been born in 1757). Look to your sources and sort out the correct date.  If unknown, say so, and put in a footnote outlining what the sources say.
 * --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally, you don't need cites in the lead section. So long as you're citing the same information in the body, you can omit cites up top.
 * You have a lot of redlinks throughout the article. I would advise de-linking any for which you don't intend to actually create an article within the near future.
 * - There are a few remaining redlinks, mostly plausible future articles. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "This was where Van Campen spent most of his childhood" - This should probably be combined with the prior sentence
 * --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "He was also commonly involved in dangerous adventures as a teenager and young man" - this seems a little unnecessary unless there were any specific adventures worth mentioning; even if there were specific adventures, that sort of information may not be encyclopedic enough to include.
 * --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "In 1769, Van Campen and his father moved to some land that they had purchased in the Wyoming Valley." - there are phrases like this throughout the article that need to be remedied. "Some land they had purchased" is a little colloquial.  I would say "In 1769, Van Campen and his father moved to the Wyoming Valley", unless it's crucial that we know they purchased the land.  Look throughout the article for informal language like this and tighten it up.
 * --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "although he did not play a significant role in the battle in question." - What battle? So far you haven't talked about any battle.
 * --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You jump right into the American revolution, but you may want to give the reader some context -- ie: After the start of the American Revolution...
 * , I think. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "to fight an opposing company in the Wyoming Valley" -- an opposing company of what? Loyalists (American Revolution)?
 * --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ - You need to really check your source on this, or find a better source; I have scoured my resources and can't find an instance of British soldiers (meaning here "British Army regulars") in the Wyoming Valley; the British Army was, at the time, concentrated around Boston, upstate New York, and lower Canada. This goes again towards my concerns with your primary source here. These concerns go directly to criterion 2(b).  Again, if this period wasn't important, you could and should cut all this detail out; you may be able to summarize the entire 1775 section by saying something along the lines of "In 1775, Van Campen was recruited as part of a company of about 700 men under Colonel Plunket to patrol and defend the Wyoming Valley.  Plunket's men participated in at least one minor skirmish (with Loyalists/Seneca/whomever), but were not able to engage in protracted fighting due to a lack of supplies. Shortly after the Revolutionary War began, Van Campen began dealing with defending settlements on the frontier. He was chosen by other men in near where he lived to be their captain. In 1776, Van Campen joined a regiment based in Northumberland County and lead by Colonel Cook.  By 1777, Van Campen was made a sergeant (in a company, unit, etc.) under the command of Thomas Gaskins and John Kelly. This unit performed scouting patrols along the Susquehanna River in order to locate settlements inhabited by Native American (again, would be better to have a tribe here) allies to the British."  That should be a model for how to deal with sections that have a lot of detail but not much action.  Summary style lends itself well to describing the minute movements of corps or army-sized units, but detailing the movements of 25-100 man units like you have here is not really "summary style".  Cdtew  (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "The group travelled upriver" - I take it you mean van Campen's company
 * "the river was found to be impossible to do the abundance of ice" - this is missing something
 * Impossible was supposed to be impassible. Fixed. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, also "impassible due to", not "impassible to do". Be very careful about usage like that.  Cdtew  (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "However, before reaching the fort, they encountered Shawnese Mountain, where a number of people fired muskets at the company" - this also doesn't make much sense. They encountered a mountain? And then the company appeared (presumably the same company as before)?
 * "However, an opposing force was waiting for them here as well, and one of Plunket's men was killed. Because of this, and because Plunket's men were not suitably equipped for a long siege, they retreated back down the Susquehanna River" - I'm not trying to lay on too thick here; this is really meant to be constructive - but your description of what sounds like a minor skirmish is particularly disorienting. I think you should go back and re-assess how you're phrasing things; you need to give your reader concise, accurate details about the engagement, but if it was really just a quick brushfight, don't write a novel about it.
 * "He was chosen by other men in near where he lived" - This isn't phrased particularly well, but moreover, militia companies generally had geographic boundaries. Was it his county?  His district (if PA had militia districts)?
 * " However, it was not until 1777 that he began fighting in the Revolutionary War." - technically if he was fighting in 1775, he was fighting in the Revolutionary War.
 * " wend to Reids Fort nar Big Island on the Susquehanna River" - This sentence contains a number of misspellings, but more importantly it needs more information about why this is important. Go throughout and see if you can find other misspellings; perhaps having the Guild of Copy Editors look over it may help?
 * "after a group of Native Americans who were camping there" - After them for what? To harass them?  To fight them? Also, Native Americans is a pretty broad category.  What tribe were they from?  Were they pro-British, or pro-Patriot?
 * "Van Campen was promoted to Lieutenant in 1778 and was subsequently placed under the command of Colonel Samuel Hunter" - Throughout this is sort of unclear, but Van Campen was militia, wasn't he? If so, state so clearly.  If not, was he Continental Army?  And what sort of unit did Hunter command?
 * Re: Native Americans besieging Fort Wheeler - again, if you can find out, what tribe were they?
 * "they discovered the hideout" - where was this hideout?
 * "but the loyalists were quickly subdued" - was this a skirmish? Any casualties?
 * "This was the most significant military event for Van Campen in that year." - this is probably superfluous, as the reader will likely figure this out
 * "and charged with gathering provisions for the Sullivan Expedition" - you've mentioned this twice, but haven't explained what it is. You should help the reader out a little, so they don't have to click a link to figure this information out.
 * " General Sullivan ordered Van Campen to head a company ambush the Indians. " - again, what Indians?
 * "went as far as a place known as the Narrows" - where were the Narrows?
 * "In 1780, Van Campen was captured by Indians, who planned to take him to Niagra" - how did that happen? Also, spelling on Niagara
 * By this point, the overuse of the term Indian is starting to remind me of "Cowboys and Indians". You run the risk of offending a lot of people unless you can identify what tribe these Indians were part of.  It's like saying "9/11 was a terrorist attack by Arabs".  That's a broad brush; if you need help identifying the tribe, it may be a good time to look into more sources on what was going on at the time, and what tribes lived in the area.  See if another source dealing more with the Indian side of things mentions this incident.
 * I did a quick bit of research and I think they were either Lenapes or Senecas. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "From there, the convinced the Indians to come with them" - another typo; also, who was it that convinced them?
 * "From there, he eventually returned to Northumberland via New Jersey" - obviously this is after Yorktown, but the reader is left to wonder - so, did he just walk out of there? Was he paroled, exchange, set free?
 * "Van Campen enjoyed wrestling." - I'm not really sure this is an encyclopedic fact, and it should probably be left out.
 * "After retiring from the army due to illness" - Was this in 1783? If so, it needs to be earlier.
 * "He also was a freeholder" - this is verging on an antiquated term; you may as well just say "farmer" and be done with it.
 * "was chosen to build the Allegany County Courthouse and Allegany County Jail" - as in, build it themselves?
 * "Van Campen was a licensee from 1810 until 1813" - that means virtually nothing, even to me, and the wikilink is unhelpful. What is this supposed to mean?
 * Overall, I think you need to tighten/shorten up much of your prose concerning his military adventures into a summary style. Van Campen sounds like a fascinating character, but many of his exploits may turn out to be unprovable from an encyclopedic standpoint, or were sufficiently minor to be summarized into several sentences.  Someone who wants to read the real details can pick up a copy of Hubbard or Beer, and read for themselves.

So, that's a lot of style stuff, but here's what I see as the bigger problems - Sourcing.
 * I'm a little concerned with your choice of a primary source -- as an editor who focuses on this era, I tend to take much of what was written in the 19th century on these topics, especially during and immediately after Indian Removal, with a grain of salt. Here are some things that appear to have either POV issues, trustworthiness issues, or that seem like they may need better sourcing:
 * "and commonly hunted with a Seneca chief named Tom Shenop." - I find it somewhat hard to believe; this reaches almost into folklore territory.
 * Do you have another reference about this Tom Shenop fellow? A Seneca "chief" named Tom Shenop isn't referenced anywhere I can find but in Hubbard.  That's usually a bad sign.  In the 19th Century, much of a historian's research was conducted by collecting and examining oral histories and memoirs from people who actually knew their subjects.  This leads oftentimes to inaccurate history, and should always be cross-referenced with modern sources.
 * " under the command of Commodore John Morrison" - a highly unusual title for this era -- When I google the phrase, the only source i see that uses this is Hubbard.
 * "after that, the army proceeded to Honcoye and destroyed that village as well before turning towards the Six Nations capital Genesee" - again, your source is defective here, in that Genesee was the principal river in the Seneca nation, but the Six Nations' capital was Onondaga, for all intents and purposes.
 * Much of the 1779 section reads like a folk tale, which is never a good sign when you're dealing with a sensitive issue like Anglo-Indian relations during the American Revolution. Have you searched for other sources that may include even a slight mention of Van Campen, but were published in a more modern light?  What about sources on the Sullivan Expedition itself?


 * My concerns about Hubbard are heightened when I realize it was written by his grandson, and when I realize that it was written during Van Campen's lifetime. There's nothing specifically wrong with sources written by grandsons or other family members, but you absolutely have to pay attention to possible hyperbole and glossing-over of negative events.  Treat them almost like primary sources.
 * The fact that Hubbard is really your sole source for 90% of the article raises my concerns even further; I'm not sure I'm comfortable passing this until you are able to find a modern source to corroborate much of what Hubbard narrates.
 * The source "Events in the Life of Moses Van Campen" is a link to a tribute site; I scoured the tribute site pretty well, and couldn't find any sourcing for the information therein, no indication of authorship, or anything else to support it as a reliable source. I am left to conclude it is not a reliable source, and as such, shouldn't be referenced.

That being said, I know this is a lot. Unfortunately, this article needs a good bit of work to get up to GA. You've got a good start here, but I fear you're a little too reliant on one source, and are having difficulty summarizing this man's life. Articles about generals have been written in far less space; what's important is that you contextualize the subject both for yourself and for the reader, much of which includes not disproportionately going into his every action unless those actions are necessary for the reader to understand.

I'm putting this on hold, but given that I've provided a long laundry list of things, if you're not comfortable that these items can be addressed in the next week (or two weeks, if you need it), let me know and I'll quick-fail it (feel free to renominate if you choose to fail it, once you've made progress with the changes). Note that, even after this list is done, it will require another read-through to see what's left to be done, as right now it's still "under construction" in my mind. Overall the writing style here is good, but this needs substantial refinement to progress up the chain.  Cdtew  (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * About the source thing, apparently there is a biography from 2009, but it's only in one library and is too far away for me to practically borrow. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jakob, I appreciate the work you've continued to put into this. I apologize for being away, as I was at a wedding this weekend, and I had depositions this week.  First, you've made a number of changes; that being said, the article is still largely the same article as I reviewed earlier.  Here's what I still see as lacking:
 * A very thorough copyedit to correct grammar, usage, and make sure there are no spelling issues left. I've made some corrections, but can't guarantee I got all.
 * The article is still very narrative. Please re-read my comments above about summary style.  Let me be clearer, in case i wasn't before:
 * What's not summary style: "In 1780, Van Campen was captured by Indians of the Seneca tribe during a raid, who planned to take him to Niagara. However, at night, he and two other men who were taken prisoner killed nine of the ten Indians guarding them (the tenth escaped). Van Campen and the others then went to the Wyoming area. Van Campen then returned to Fort Jenkins. Later in 1780, he was ordered to destroy a nearby group of Senecas. He went to Northumberland with a number of other soldiers, then crossed the Susquehanna River and returned past Mahoning Creek to Roaring Creek. He and the soldiers disguised themselves as Indians and encountered a Loyalist hunter by the name of Wilkinson. Van Campen and the others convinced Wilkinson to take them to the Indian settlement. From there, Van Campen convinced the Indians to come with them, and the Indians were captured by a Captain Robinson.[4] The Indians were then taken to Northumberland, where Colonel Hunter commanded that they leave the area for the duration of the war."
 * What's more appropriate: "In 1780, Van Campen and two other members of the militia were captured by Seneca warriors during a raid. Despite the Seneca's plans to take them to Niagara [As an aside - Niagara falls?  Niagara a place?  Where?], the prisoners killed several of their guards and escaped and returned to Fort Jenkins.  After that, Van Campen was tasked with destroying a nearby group of Senecas [Note here -- this isn't clear.  A group of warriors?  A village?] .  Rather than destroy them, Van Campen disguised himself as a Seneca and tricked them into following him directly to Pennsylvania militia, who forced the Seneca to leave the area."
 * Here's another example:
 * Not: "Annoyed at persistent ambushes by the local Indians, General Sullivan ordered Van Campen to head a company ambush the Indians. The orders given to Van Campen and his company by Major Adam Hoops were to as close to the Indians as possible and then move out onto the nearby plain. From here, their plan was to set a sentinel in a tree and ambush the next group of Indians who went past. After some time, Van Campen's sentinel signalled that there were 15 Indians nearby, although it turned out that the signal was a false alarm. General Sullivan then ordered Van Campen to spy on the Indians and determine how many there were, so he headed in the direction of a nearby Indian camp with one other person, disguised as an Indian. He and his companion cautiously crossed the Chemung River and ascended the mountain, from which they could see the campfires of the Indians. After stopping briefly, they continued down the mountain to the campfires. Van Campen then left his companion and travelled alone to the campfires, and estimated that there were 700 Indians there."
 * More appropriate: "Annoyed at persistent ambushes by local hostile Indians, General Sullivan ordered Van Campen to lead a company of militia to scout out the Indian's number and locations, and, where possible, to ambush them.  During this scouting, Van Campen discovered estimated that there were about 700 Indians [Again, do you mean warriors?  Or does this include women and children and old men?] nearby."
 * There's stuff like this throughout. I think you should go review another GA-level biography of a military figure, and compare their styles.  The narrative style should be left for the sources; the article should be a summary, not a story.  Another thing that would concern me is that at some level, a reviewer or reader may question the notability of the subject.  I believe, based on the material published on Van Campen, he's a notable figure; the excess of information and narrative style, however, really highlights the lack of information about Van Campen, which may encourage people to think he's not notable per WP:GNG.
 * Again, sourcing is still wobbly. While the quality of the sources only impact this minimally at the GA level (except for the quotations you use in the article), going beyond this you should really work on finding more reliable sources and directing readers to particular pages or page ranges for each citation.
 * Unfortunately at this point I still don't think it's at GA level. I know working with a subject who is relatively more obscure, and for whom sources are not as readily available can be tough, but I want to encourage you to keep on.  You really have a knack for finding interesting subjects and you clearly have a passion for your subjects; I just want to make sure that you look to tightening up your writing.  Trust me, I've never been a perfect writer, but one thing I've tried to focus on more and more is "Just the facts (with a side of flavor)".  If you disagree, feel free to renominate or seek a reassessment; I would encourage you to work on what I've noted, though.  Keep it up!   Cdtew  (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)