Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Quebec (1775)/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:10, 11 September 2010.

Battle of Quebec (1775)

 * Nominator(s):  Magic ♪piano 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The first big American defeat of the American Revolutionary War. It went through a MILHIST A-class review in May, and I think its prose benefited from learning experiences in my FAC submissions earlier this year. I hope it meets with your approval.  Magic ♪piano 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * There is some inconsistency in providing publisher locations
 * All books should now have locations.
 * It ought to be made clear that the Griffin book is published by the author.
 * Done.
 * The Griffin book does not appear to be cited in the article, and perhaps should be listed as further reading?
 * It is referenced in note 1; I have changed the text in the note to be consistent with other references there.
 * Same point with Vergereau-Dewey book
 * Same point with the Ward & Alden book.
 * These two are moved to further reading.  Magic ♪piano 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No redirects. Has the French language really become that unimportant?  — Dispenser 04:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Beats me. I do know that Quebeckers have a sensitivity toward military actions (especially those involving primarily English speakers) on their territory; hence the need to make sure the role of Francophones are well-represented in articles like this.  Or did you have something else in mind?  Magic ♪piano 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the suggestion is that you should create a redirect from the French name for the battle, so that French searches will lead to it (it is Quebec, after all). For example, when I work on other language articles, I redirect all possible translations.  You should [ categorize them,] also.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a fine suggestion; I have added a number of suitable redirects, and the French name for the battle to the article.  Magic ♪piano 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: Just started to work my way through the article now, may be a while until I have gone through it totally due to my skiving at work XD


 * Ok, so far my only concern are the following:


 * “In September 1775, the Continental Army began moving into Quebec, with the goal of liberating it from British military control.”
 * Is this not POV pushing (unless I have taken it in the wrong context), the next paragraph talks about how local inhabitants aided both sides, how the French had generally accepted British control and the British had recently passed certain laws to re-establish certain rights etc. So who were the Americans (Rebels :p) liberating?
 * Montgomery published a propaganda tract that said essentially this, so it is representative of the stated American goal. They thought they were liberating the locals, who (courtesy of the 1774 Quebec Act) did not have representative government, and needed to be freed from an authoritarian British regime that denied them basic rights.  (The fact that the Quebec Act created a somewhat more accomodating government than the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not enter into the American calculation, to their detriment.)  I figure the statement as it stands implies it's their position, and not an editorial one.  If you disagree, I can make it more explicit.  Magic ♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On a second read, looks like i just misinterpreted it first time round. Seems fine.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ”Montgomery realized he was in a very difficult position, since the frozen ground prevented the digging of trenches and his lack of heavy weapons made it impossible to breach the city's defenses. ... Arnold would lead one attack to smash through the walls at the north end of the lower town, and Montgomery would follow along the St. Lawrence south of the town.”
 * This bit has me confused; if it was initially stated that Montgomery did not have the weapons to breech the walls then how, after splitting his force would they be able to? Granted the next section does refer to them as the outer wooden walls and not the main defenses, i think this should be clarified.
 * I've added some words to clarify this.  Magic ♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CheersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * External Links need to use the correct citeweb template.
 * Done (although this hasn't been an issue in my previous FACs...)  Magic ♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have in the pass, i guess it depends on who looks at it :P EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than that the article looks well researched, intresting to read, everything is consistent and i will support it for FA status pending the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With the changes made, i have just added the portal to the article, i honeslty cant see anything majorly at fault with the article; its a good read, imformative and appears to tick off everything on the list.


 * SupportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. A nice ripping yarn of British derring-do. I have only one comment and it's that this sentence paints all sorts of pictures in my mind: "Montgomery attempted to send a personal letter to Carleton demanding the city's surrender, using a woman as the messenger." I have a vision of her being flung over the city walls, perhaps with a message written on her body somewhere. What about something like "employed a woman to deliver a personal letter to the British"? It seems that there might be some significance in it being a woman, presumably because Montgomery thought that the British would be too gallant to fire on a female? Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that visual (and the support). I believe (but don't think I've seen it stated in sources) that the reason was indeed to avoid a repeat of what happened to Arnold's messengers.  Magic ♪piano 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting read. I enjoyed it, though I must confess I would have enjoyed it more if the Americans had won :) In any case, I give my support to the article for FA-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Spot-check of prose in ONE para the middle. [Support now (1a)] Tony   (talk)  12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Lots to fix. What is the rest of it like?
 * "Three days later he issued a proclamation stating that any able-bodied man within the town that did not take up arms would be assumed to be a rebel or a spy, and would be treated as such. Men not taking up arms were given four days to leave.[17] The result of this proclamation was that As a result, about 500 inhabitants (including 200 British and 300 Canadiens) joined the defense." So the town did not take up arms? "Who".
 * Whenever I see "also" (worse, two of them close by) I look for better ways; and "trained" × 2: "Carleton also took steps to address the weak points of the town's defensive fortifications. He had two log barricades and palisades erected along the St. Lawrence shoreline, within the area covered by his cannons. He assigned his forces to defensive positions along the walls and the inner defenses.[19]  He also made sure the under-trained militia in his forces were under well-trained leadership." Consider this instead: "Carleton took steps to address the weak points of the town's defensive fortifications: he had two log barricades and palisades erected along the St. Lawrence shoreline in the area covered by his cannons; he assigned his forces to defensive positions along the walls and the inner defenses;[19]  and he made sure the under-trained in his forces were under strong leadership."
 * "Many of the expedition's food stores were spoiled because of bad weather and wrecked boats."—Consider a neater version without the doubled-up causality: "Bad weather and wrecked boats spoiled many of the expedition's food stores."
 * ", among them one of the New England battalions as well as and others who had become sick or wounded along the way ".
 * Causality again unnecessarily explicit (at the end of each clause ... the first is obvious from the previous sentence): "In spite of the terrible condition his troops were in following the trek, Arnold immediately began to gather boats so they could cross the river." -> "Despite the terrible condition his troops, Arnold immediately began to gather boats for the river crossing. Once on the other side, he moved ..."
 * "The troops that ...". Are they robots or people? Tony   (talk)  01:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your (as always) insightful comments on my prose. I will work on some adjustments; I note that Malleus is also most helpfully copyediting.  Magic ♪piano 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Malleus and I both made a few passes over the article, including addressing the issues you specifically cite above. Do tell if you think it is sufficiently improved.  Magic ♪piano 23:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments . Just wanted to return the favour for your review at Petitcodiac River. I'm just going to check the prose and MoS:


 * "...to converge in the lower city, outside the walls, before scaling the walls themselves." -> Not much of an issue as far as redundancy goes, but is it possible to try and rephrase the double "walls"?
 * Could you keep the spelling of the word "towards" consistent throughout the article?
 * Done  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...was that the large French Catholic Canadien..." -> The term "Canadien" is a demonym for French Canadians; this makes the word "French" redundant, although you should probably just remove the word "Canadien" to avoid ambiguity. If you choose the latter, you should have other occurrences of the word to reflect that.
 * Comment Sigh. "Canadien" is also often "helpfully" edited to "Canadian" because it looks like a typo.  Yes, it's redundant; to most non-Canadians, I suspect it's also a little jargonny, so the added definitional clause on first use strikes me as appropriate.  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You can't blame the wiki-gnomes, however; I myself am a French-Canadian (New Brunswick though, not Quebec), and I was about to change it to "Canadian" had I not clicked the wiki-link to the article. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Final two sentences of Defense of the province: can a proper synonym for "defenses" be found to avoid the second use of the word?
 * Done  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your subordinate clauses have no commas following them in many cases.
 * Fixed I think. This one is tricky for me.  Magic ♪piano 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed those you missed. They are hard to get used to in prose since you don't hear them in verbal speech. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The troops approaching Quebec's walls were a pitiful force." -> Could we use a word other than pitiful? Sounds a little too subjective.
 * Done  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd New York regiments, a company of artillery raised by John Lamb..." -> Should "raised" be replaced with "trained" here? A second occurrence is a few words later, as well.
 * Comment Lamb may have trained them, but he was also recruited the unit. "Raise" is not uncommonly used in military terminology to describe the recruitment of a unit's members.  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I can't say I'm experienced when it comes to military, let alone how they speak. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...so they froze some snow into blocks and fashioned a solid wall." -> Sculpted, maybe? Perhaps it would be best to omit "some" as well.
 * Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even better than my suggestion. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "It was impossible to return the defenders' fire..." -> Was it truly impossible to return fire? If not, I suggest changing the word to loosen its intention.
 * Clarified If you've been to Quebec, you know how high those walls are above the lower town...  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'll take your word for it. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...and reported 30 Americans killed, and "many perished on the River" attempting to get away." -> And... and? Maybe using a semi-colon would help with the structure here.
 * Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found times where serial commas were used, and times where they were not. This should be consistent.
 * Fixed I think a number of these have be rephrased, but I found a few.  Magic ♪piano 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just missed one near the end. I fixed it. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly knowledgeable here, but is it supposed to be "at Quebec" or "in Quebec"?
 * Fixed I mostly standardized on "at"; the few remaining "in"s just read wrong.


 * That's about what I could find. Please note when you complete something so I can verify it and lend my support. Very interesting read! Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your commentary; I think I've addressed everything.  Magic ♪piano 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have. I have no further problems with the article. Thank you for helping to keep the history of Quebec alive (just goes to show Americans can't win at everything (1812 ), but that's a topic for another day)! Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your sharp-eyed prose editing (and your support, of course).  Magic ♪piano 00:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Image Review: All good; eight images are in the public domain, one is licensed under a free license. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but could I suggest that images be placed more towards the top of each section? If you don't put your window very wide, "Benedict Arnold" creeps into the next section, for example. And I wonder whether you'd consider enlarging some of them. John Trumbull, St. John's, and some of the other art works are beautiful: don't they deserve at least 240px? Or 250? Tony   (talk)  12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged the images some to minimize left-side overhangs, and tweaked the sizes of some of them. Feel free to make further adjustments...  Magic ♪piano 17:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


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