Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis Nash/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 User:GrahamColm 10:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC).

Francis Nash

 * Nominator(s):  Cdtew  (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive examination of this general, whose short career resulted in widespread commemoration, but little subsequent historical reflection. I believe I have compiled all the substantive sources on the subject, and the article recently passed A-Class Review at WP:MILHIST. I'm looking forward to your comments!.  Cdtew  (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. The article version is essentially the same as the one I supported for A-class. Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN17, 20: page formatting
 * 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nikki, thanks again for your help. I have corrected the two issues you raised.   Cdtew  (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Close to support on all criteria, including images (conducted an image check, two U.S. government images, one pre-1923, one freely licenced own work). The prose is often a bit wordy, and there are some places where slightly more detail seems to be called for (where I, as a reader ignorant of the subject matter, found myself wanting more - which I should say is itself a credit to the article's flow and tone). Specific comments:
 * I've done some copyediting - see what you think.
 * Many thanks on the expert copy work; I appreciate it sincerely and have no quibbles.


 * I'm a little surprised that this article has made it as far as it has with the same sentence repeated twice at the end of the article - I've removed one of its occurrences, but it does make me wonder how thoroughly this has been copyedited.
 * Without examining the diffs, I can't say how that happened. I have to imagine that was a copy/paste error that occurred at some point after its latest review at Milhist.


 * "Francis had a law practice in Childsburgh..." This makes it sound pre-existing, which I assume it wasn't. "...started a law practice", maybe?
 * Agreed, and done.


 * "Nash had an illegitimate child, possibly a son..." This sounds silly, because as far as I can tell "possibly a son" doesn't add any information at all.  Is there a reason it's there?
 * Given that so little is known of his personal life, it adds some information, though the information is speculative. The sources from which I cite prevaricate on the gender of the child, but most (particularly the one cited) believe it was a son.  The "possibly" just indicates to the reader that the sources don't know with any certainty.  I'd entertain any other method of conveying this information, but it's information I believe that deserves to stay.
 * If that's what most sources say, I'd suggest just saying that: "Nash had an illegitimate child, which most sources identify as a son..." Just saying "possibly a son" tells us nothing; it's like saying "My wife is pregnant, possibly with a son!"  When a kid's sex isn't specified, it's implied that it's possibly a son.  Or possibly a daughter.
 * I've altered this whole structure so it makes more sense. The sentence wasn't worded well, I'll admit, and I think the new wording better reflects scholars' consensus (and lack of precise knowledge).  Cdtew  (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Steve Smith (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "A trial found Nash innocent of public corruption." Did it find him innocent, or not guilty?  I don't know my eighteenth century North Carolina criminal law very well, but I'd wager that it was the latter, since common law jurisdictions (which includes every state except Louisiana) do not normally have a verdict of "innocent".
 * N.B.: I do business litigation and contracts. Never have I even done one criminal case.  And I intentionally tried to forget all of my Crim Law.  But, that being said, the source says he was "exonerated", which if I recall correctly implies that a person has been affirmatively found not to have done something, rather than being merely found to have not done something based on a preponderance of the evidence (ie: a criminal is found "not guilty" when the State can't prove its case, but is "exonerated" when, after a conviction, it's discovered that he didn't actually commit the crime).  I will likely just modify this to "exonerated" to match the source.   Cdtew  (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I practice almost exclusively criminal law, but very little of it in eighteenth century North Carolina. At least here in Canada, "exonerated" has no fixed legal meaning, but I agree with you about what it implies.  I'm still a little queasy about that, because in my experience sources, including reliable ones, often confused being found not guilty with being exonerated or found innocent, and I have a hunch that that's what's happening here.  Still, we're limited by our sources, and if that's what the source says, I agree that it's the best solution.
 * After consulting another source, I've changed this to reflect the situation as the other source describes it -- simply charges dismissed.


 * "...he attempted to use the militia to put down several riots..." Could we say "ordered" rather than "attempted to use"?
 * Agreed, and done.


 * Is there reason to believe that an article will at some point be created for Adlai Osborne? Having now taken a glance at your userpage, I consider that question answered. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a goal for Fall 2013.


 * "In 1771, and again in 1773–1775, he served in the colonial Assembly as a representative for Hillsborough." Any further details about his political career?  I assume that he had to be elected to this assembly - do we know if he was opposed?  Do we know why he wasn't a member from 1771–1773?
 * I will dig further into the election details; as for details about his political career as a whole, what is in the article is all I've been able to find. I will double-check to make sure nothing was left out, though.  My library of colonial North Carolina sources is probably the largest in private, non-institutional hands.
 * Anything you could add would be helpful, I think, but it's not worth holding up the FA over. Back when I was attending law school in New Brunswick, I referred to my own collection as "New Brunswick's largest privately held library on Alberta's political history", which was a claim that I felt reasonably comfortable making, but now that I'm back in Alberta I suspect that I share the province with larger collections.
 * Ah, the minor claims to fame we have to make. I only can say I'm certain about my claim because the North Carolinian with the largest private library gave much of his to me, and I bought much of another North Carolinian's large library.  I couldn't find other descriptions of the election; the official Colonial Records only detail when he was elected, and when he was sworn in. In order to find more, I'm sure I'd have to dig into newspapers (of which there was only one -- the North Carolina Gazette) from the time.


 * "In 1774, Royal Governor Josiah Martin attempted to prevent the North Carolina Assembly from convening..." This sounds important.  How did he attempt to prevent it?  Did he order it not to convene?  Did he send soldiers?
 * I clarified; he didn't really have soldiers to begin with, as the militia was firmly in control of those that supported the soon-to-be-Patriotd. This needed to be clarified anyways - I've changed it to clarify the set of circumstances fully.
 * Looks good. Steve Smith (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "colonial Assembly" There's some confusion throughout this article as to what's a proper noun and what isn't. What was the official name of this body?  If it was "Colonial Assembly", then both words should be capitalized.  If it was just "Assembly" (which I doubt), then the way it is is fine.  If it was anything else, neither word should be capitalized.
 * This is another tricky one. No official name was given to the body by the 1663 and 1665 charters of Carolina; it said merely the people shall have a right to "assemble" to pass laws.  In NC, the body called itself varyingly the Upper and Lower Houses of the North Carolina Assembly, the lower house calling itself often in the 18th century the "House of Assembly" or the "House of Commons", and the whole bicameral unit was later labeled the North Carolina General Assembly, which is confusing because that's the name of the legislative body existing in NC from 1776 to the present.  So, in line with most of the sources, I have taken to calling it the "colonial Assembly", to differentiate it from the post-colonial Assembly that would later be known as the state "General Assembly".  I've had this discussion before, and I believe I'm doing the right thing by the sources.  I did clarify which house he was in, though.


 * "Nash returned with his regiment to North Carolina in anticipation of being ordered to join General George Washington's army in the north, but fears of British and Indian attacks in Georgia prevented any orders for him to join the main Continental Army." So was he then ordered to Georgia? Or was he left in North Carolina in case he had to go to Georgia?
 * The latter. I've clarified.


 * "Howe was forced to remain in command of the Continental troops defending South Carolina." The way this is worded, it sort of sounds like he was ordered by his higher-ups to do so, against his will.  Reading between the lines, I gather that the troops were sufficiently in the thick of things that a change in command was impractical.  Can you clarify?
 * Clarified. Howe was basically given a promotion that paved his way to Major General; although he wanted to be involved in what he thought was the main bulk of the fighting in the Northern colonies, he also wanted the rank, so it was semi-consensual.  No need to go into all of that detail here, though.


 * "After his death, on April 29, 1784, his heirs received..." I'd rather reword this to the active voice.  Who awarded this to his heirs?  The Continental Congress? Washington?
 * Clarified.


 * Images: All of the ones there are properly licenced, but I wonder if they're the best choices. Here's a freely licenced image of the monument at his home that might be suitable for the last section, or, alternatively, here's one of his gravestone (or something similar).  I suspect that this image and this one are public domain, in which case they'd make worthy additions to the article, although you'd have to do some digging to be sure.  In contrast, File:AlamanceBattleground.jpg doesn't seem to add a great deal, and I don't know if the detail in the article on the Battle of Germantown is sufficient for File:Battle of Germantown.Dean.USMA.edu.history.gif to be helpful.  Finally, are there really no images of the man?  I admit that a Google search didn't turn any up, but it would be surprising to me if somebody sufficiently significant to have a major city named after him wasn't committed to canvass at some point.
 * I appreciate the insight; as I get time over the next day or two, I will mull your images over, several of which I agree are more fitting. I never really considered the use of Flickr images before.  As for a portrait, I'm afraid I've come up dry.  In fact, in my series on the Continental Army generals from NC, only 1/5th (Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)) had a portrait I've been able to access.  Another, James Moore (Continental Army officer) has a portrait that may be post-mortem fantasy, but I have only seen it in person, aside from one blurry reprinting in a 25-year old book.  I think the fact is that Nash was just not significant until the moment of his death, and painters were in short supply in colonial NC.  In fact, it strikes me that the military commanders from NC who did have portraits were mostly militia commanders, who had the comforts of the homefront with them constantly.
 * Still, I'd have expected there to be, at minimum, a "post-mortem fantasy" or two, if only so there could be something to hang in Nashville's city hall. You know the sources far better than I do, though, and I'm certainly not insisting that you dig up an image that may not even exist.  With respect to Flickr, I find it a great resource for freely licenced non-historical photographs.
 * I replaced the Alamance image with one of the Chew house you found, which had previously been uploaded to Wikipedia. As for the Map of Germantown, I replaced it with the Highway Historical marker.  The DAR Gravestone/Monument isn't one I can use, as I have no way of verifying whether or not it was erected prior to 1976 for the purposes of determining copyright.  Regardless, the original grave marker is on the web, too, but pictures of it are generally low-quality.  Another thing to think about in re: portraiture is that Nashville was originally a backwoods trading post known as "Fort Nashborough"; I don't think there was ever an inclination that it would become a booming capital until 30 years after Nash's death.  Cdtew  (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Overally, certainly a strong article that I expect to support before we're through here. Steve Smith (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Steve, thank you for your comments. I intend to address them all within the next few days.  My schedule is a little crazy because of an appeal argument i'm doing this week.  Do you mind if I reply to each of your points below your comment in italics?  If you'd prefer I didn't break up your text, I will reply below.   Cdtew  (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection at all to that, and I'm in no hurry. Steve Smith (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, your comment above tells me that you're a lawyer; I hadn't realized that when I made my point about "innocent" vs. "not guilty", or I might have been a touch less condescending. Steve Smith (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - I do contracts and business litigation. Wouldn't touch a criminal case with a 10ft pole, unless I wanted to go ahead and call my professional liability carrier first.   Cdtew  (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Steve, I believe I've reached the end of your current concerns/edits. Please let me know (a) if that's incorrect, and (b) if you see anything else needed to bring this to FA-status.  Thanks much for your help!  Cdtew  (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Support, per all of my above concerns being addressed. Steve Smith (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- Been meaning to review this (recusing myself from delegate duties) for the last week, will aim to do so later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyedited a bit so let me know if I've misunderstood anything. Outstanding points:
 * Nash had an illegitimate child, which some scholars identify as a son, and another illegitimate child by Hillsborough barmaid Ruth Jackson, for whom records are lacking. -- Taking into account the footnote, we have two illegitimate kids, one whose mother is unknown and one whose mother is known, and no certainty in either case as to the child's sex, though one's been reported as a boy and the other reported as a girl, yes? If so, I think there may be better ways to phrase it but let me know I'm on the right track first...
 * I've fixed that language to: "Nash had two children out of wedlock, one of which some scholars identify as a son. The mother of one of the children was reported as Hillsborough barmaid Ruth Jackson.  Nash's son born out of wedlock was also named Francis Nash, and was possibly born in 1770 or 1771. The elder Nash provided Jackson with property west of Hillsborough, and several slaves." .  I hope that clears it up -- I also recall Dank's prior comment on another review that I should avoid "illegitimate" as much as possible.
 * Okay, better, but re. "Nash's son born out of wedlock was also named Francis Nash, and was possibly born in 1770 or 1771", is this the same child who "some scholars identify as a son"? The way it reads it might (if there were only two kids out of wedlock, this must be the first mentioned) or might not be (we mentioned a possible son before, now we seem to be talking about a definite son, so maybe they're different). If we mean the same kid, I think we should combine this with the first mention of a possible son. In that case it could be something like "Nash had two children out of wedlock, one of which some scholars identify as a son also named Francis Nash, possibly born in 1770 or 1771". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean; I adapted your fix, which is a correct interpretation.  Cdtew  (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we start the War of the Regulation and pre-Revolution politics section with a paragraph ending in events of September 1770 and then move back to events of 1768 early in the following paragraph -- Is there a reason I've missed for not describing things in chronological sequence?
 * Ah, shucks, you're right. Fixed the chronology.
 * After the British captured Philadelphia on September 11, 1777, Washington took the offensive and struck at the British forces in the Battle of Germantown. -- When you say "the British forces", is the implication that these were the British troops that captured Philly, as opposed to British forces in general?
 * Yes, generally the forces were those that were occupying the Philly area; corrected to clarify.
 * Nash is recognized as one of only ten Patriot generals who died during the American Revolutionary War -- I'm not sure "recognized" is necessary here, as it suggests that's all that made him notable. How about simply Nash is [or "was"] one of only ten Patriot generals who died during the American Revolutionary War?
 * Agreed. Done.


 * Aside from the above, prose, structure, coverage, referencing and image licensing look good to me, so leaning to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review; I believe I've addressed all your concerns so far. Let me know if any others arise.   Cdtew  (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of that, looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * "born around the year 1742"
 * "including four brothers" -- did he have four brothers, or were four of his brothers born in Wales? I'm guessing it's the latter.
 * "one of which" -- perhaps you could replace which with whom.
 * "with property west" -- one property, or several properties? I may have missed something. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I've addressed all but your last comment, with the following notes:
 * The sources don't indicate the distribution of the number of brothers and sisters Nash had, and apparently I'd misinterpreted a note about how many brothers were born in Wales; I've corrected to match the sources.
 * As for the property, there's no mention of whether it was one or more tracts. Given that the area in which the property was located was generally open country in the colonial era, I imagine it was one contiguous tract, but the sources don't clarify.
 * Please let me know if you see anything else that needs correcting or clarifying.  Cdtew  (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The images and references check out. The article is sufficiently stable. My comments have been addressed. I am therefore happy to support. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.