Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment/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 20:49, 22 April 2008.

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it meets all FAC criteria and is as complete as it needs to be to reflect the history of this unit. Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarFirst.htm is from About.com. What makes this reliable?
 * The article is published by About.com, but it clearly has an author whose credentials are established within a seperate biography page. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this http://www.us-civilwar.com/ put out by a magazine publisher?
 * Not sure. I will find another source. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/firezou/ a reliable source?
 * Nothing. Removed and working on a replacement. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Links were fine. Other sources look good. (Wanna do my ancestors regiment from Mississippi? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good. Thanks.--Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Nitpicky reference issues:

Budding Journalist 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I believe I have addressed all of your concerns and welcome you taking another look to be sure. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. One thing I noticed on revisiting: for the The War of the Rebellion references, you should make sure the Volume/Series/Chapter listings are consistent. Sometimes you give the Chapter, sometimes not; sometimes you give the Series, sometimes not. Also, be consistent in either using Arabic or Roman numerals for the numbers (for example, you have Series 3 and Series I). Finally, it'd be good to include page numbers too for offline reference or in case the link ever goes dead. Budding Journalist 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I corrected where applicable, but several sources only contain Series and Volumes, with no chapters. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from: Hal Jespersen (talk) This is a very good article. A few minor comments: Good luck with the review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think that custom military organization template (the second box) works very well. You should consider coding it as a regular table. In my browser, some of the lines extend past the right-hand boundary. I don't see any reason to have a template for a single unit anyway; it will not be widely used in other articles.
 * 2) I'm not sure what the policy really is, but the practice of putting multiple footnotes on the same point looks funny. Why can't you combine the related citations into a single footnote, separated by semicolons? (As an aside, I don't know how you can possibly stand to use those verbose citation templates that someone came up with to plague Wikipedia editors. They really make the source code of the article very difficult to read and edit. To each his own, I guess ...)
 * 3) Near the end of the article, you use the expression "Some have argued that ..." I don't have the Wikipedia guidance page on this handy, but this is an expression to be avoided. You should cite an actual historian who argues that point of view. Perhaps the citation you have included does that, but since I do not have that book, I cannot tell.


 * Reply I'm sorry the template isn't showing up appropriately within your browser. I wonder if the problem is widespread. As for footnotes, I have seen several articles where they are back to back and because of the codes used I don't believe they can be combined. Lastly, I have changes the attribution directly to the author (Detzer), who states it in his book. Thanks for the comments. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by MrPrada (talk) Overall, good so far. I will have to give it a more thorough reading. Three things that are mostly stylistic struck me right away: I'll check back and add more as I come across it. Good luck. MrPrada (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm almost positive there is a wikipedia article for John Jacob Astor II.
 * 2) Is there any way to get a larger flag of the Colors? Its very hard to make out right now, and even when you click on the image it is still not a very high resolution. That image can stay in the article, but perhaps you can find a larger version of the flag for use elsewhere
 * 3) The image of the POWs at Camp Pickney is too close to the "After Bull Run" section for my browser, and gets bisected by the horizontal line. You may wish to consider moving it up.


 * Reply In order, (1.) According to Astor family, there is no such article. (2.) I personally have never seen this flag and am not sure from where another photo could be obtained. (3.) I moved it up two paragraphs, which seperates it from the related text but solves the problem of the line. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Oddnessess and awkwardnesses, and other prose issues. Please find a word-nerd who's interested in this field to go through it and iron out the language; as authors, we get too close to it to tell, sometimes.
 * "On the same day in which Lincoln issued the call for troops, he wrote Ellsworth asking for his support in this endeavor." On/in tension. Why not "The same day L issued ..."? "Wrote Ellsworth" without the preposition is OK in US English, but consider whether it sounds stilted here. He wrote a letter; he wrote Ellsworth; he wrote words. What is the referent for this endeavor? There are lots of foregoing possibilities.
 * "fundraisers were successful in contributing $60,000 to the regiment"—Maybe, but surely it's the people the fundraisers smoothed over who contributed. Fundraisers raise money.
 * Another referent problem: "Early news reports covered the regiment's formation, with one reporting:" One what? Formation? And when we do think about it, "report reporting".
 * "Flashy" twice? I could only just cope once. It's a kind of attitudinal epithet, risky in this register.
 * I keep finding odd turns of phrase: "The initial uniforms of gray, blue and red were created, purchased with funds donated by the people of New York." Were they created or purchased? Confusing. TONY   (talk)  15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I corrected those specific sentences and will review the rest of the article. I know of a few "word-nerds" which may be able to help. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I made a request at the League of Copyeditors for someone to have a look at the article. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Oppose: Image:11thInfReg.jpg and Image:11thFireRegiment.jpg both need to provide verifiable sources, per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 17:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to oppose as policy concerns have not been addressed after several days. Images need the same consideration as prose.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Images sourced. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak object - lead needs to be expanded.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Lead expanded. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.