Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Hogun/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 10:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC).

James Hogun

 * Nominator(s):  Cdtew  (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The last in the series in which I've been working, this article covers the least-known and least-referenced general in the Continental Army from North Carolina. James Hogun was a relative unknown, picked almost (but never explicitly stated as such) as a compromise candidate among North Carolinian politicians feuding over who should be made the next general from that state. Hogun served a brief period of time, before being captured. He allegedly chose to remain in captivity rather than being paroled (although I personally question whether or not he wasn't paroled either because he wasn't considered a gentleman of property, and thus his word would have been worthless, or because he was native Irish). He died in a prison camp outside of Charleston. My busy work schedule is forcing me into a form of semi-retirement, but I wanted to see this project completed at the least. Thank you in advance for your review!  Cdtew  (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made a few tweaks. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan, thanks for taking a look at this one.  Cdtew  (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. FN14: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for having a look.  Cdtew  (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
I've got an immense soft spot for comprehensively-researched articles about subjects like this, that are notable, or even important, but with comparatively little extant documentation. In general (pun probably intended), this is in great shape, and I've only got a few quibbles:
 * I'm not entirely sold on the relevance of the Halifax area map, but there's admittedly limited options for illustration here. I don't suppose an image of the area where the historical marker suggests his home stood is both available and actually interesting?
 * I've looked, and I don't see an image that seems worthwhile, including on Flickr. I'm a fan of the map just because its a common element to the other four articles I've done (a map of their home areas from the 1770 Collet work).


 * Gloss Haddrel's Point if you're going to mention in the lead? It's almost certainly not notable as a place, but we don't receive any context as to its location until the section on his imprisonment.
 * Done.


 * Perhaps consider combining the Early life and Political involvement sections? They're both pretty stubby, by necessity, and it's at least reasonably defensible to discuss the pre-War material in a single section. I can probably be convinced otherwise if you'd rather not go this route.
 * I agree, and have combined.


 * I'd try to reword the Early life section to avoid the "It is known that..." construction if possible. Since the state seems to have known where he lived, perhaps that's worth mentioning at this point?
 * Done, re: "It is known". Also, added that information, which is relevant.


 * "...relative rise..." Relative to what?
 * Not sure what I was going for there, but I removed the offending word.


 * I'm not sure how much weight it deserves, but perhaps flesh out the debate over his promotion a little more? It's one of the handful of events in Hogun's life where there's a lot known, and I'm inclined to feel the article should make use of that.
 * Fleshed out with what was in the footnote; I'm not sure I want to go too deep into the debate, however, for fear of messing with the summary style. The reasons for the controversy aren't well fleshed-out in the sources, which would be the only other thing this is really missing.


 * This book mentions his burial was in an unmarked grave (it's implied in some of your sources). Consider adding that to round out the discussion of his death?
 * Done. I've used that source in other articles, not sure why I didn't here.


 * The grant of 12,000 acres of Davidson County land to Lemuel by the North Carolina government was apparently explicitly done to honor James and surely counts as part of his Legacy.
 * Agreed, and added.


 * The caption for Clinton's map might want to indicate the location in question is "at far right", or something; I wandered around the map for a little while looking for it.
 * Done.


 * I know sources don't agree on Haddrel's Point/Haddrell's Point, but you should. It's got two l's in the map caption, but one elsewhere throughout the article.
 * Standardized to one-l.


 * You aren't consistent about whether you short-form page ranges. Compare footnote 6 (162–63) and 14 with footnote 16 (167–170) and the Rankin reference.
 * Standardized to short-forming them.

I don't think this is very far off from meeting my standards for support, and most of these are very easy tweaks. Admirable work with material limited by history. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your kind words, and for your thorough review. I have addressed your comments (as is my custom) in italics below each discrete remark; if that's inconvenient or distracting for you, let me know and I will bunch my responses together below.  Please let me know if you see anything else that needs work!  My edits are here.   Cdtew  (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note, as you appear to be aware, that this user hasn't revisited this FAC, among others. I believe I have addressed all of 's comments, for the record.   Cdtew  (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support by Ian Rose

 * Copyedited as usual, pls let me know if I've misunderstood or broken anything; only one outstanding query:
 * "Hogun's regiment served on a work detail tasked with building up the fortifications at West Point. Hogun found the task distasteful..." -- Not having looked at the source, is "distasteful" (meaning "repulsive", "offensive", etc) definitely what's meant? Or was it simply boring, beneath him, or something else? Just checking...
 * As usual, I appreciate all of your copy-editing (especially in light on an embarrassing "en route" error), and have no problem with any of it. As for distasteful - the source isn't explicit, but it appears it was a combination of "boring" and "beneath him".  I've edited the article to reflect that [ here].  Thanks again for your help!  Cdtew  (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Structure, comprehensiveness, and neutrality seem fine to me.
 * As far as referencing goes I'll rely on the source review above.
 * Image licensing looks okay but be happy to have that confirmed by Nikki or another specialist. Allowing for that, happy to support another in Cdtew's fine series of ARW bios. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:1780_map_of_Charleston,_South_Carolina.jpeg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for looking at this, Nikki. I have added a fresh, working link for that source (note: I wasn't the uploader, and had to hunt for it myself).   Cdtew  (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comments Support from Hchc2009:
 * "Despite being offered the opportunity to leave internment under a parole that was generally extended to other captured Continental officers, Hogun remained in a British prisoner-of-war camp near Charleston, perhaps in order to prevent the British Army from recruiting Continental soldiers for its campaign in the West Indies. " - quite a long sentence, particularly in the lead. Worth breaking after officers, or Charleston?
 * Reworded somewhat, and broke in two. let me know what you think.


 * "Between August, 1775, and November, 1776, Hogun represented Halifax County in the Third, Fourth, and Fifth North Carolina Provincial Congresses, demonstrating an interest in military matters" - "demonstrating" here could mean two different things; either, that his representation of the County demonstrates that he was interested in military matters, or that, while representing the County, he demonstrated an interest in military matters.
 * You're right. Fixed the wording to "and demonstrated".


 * " returned to West Point with the first regiment so recruited" - I'm not sure you've said that he had been to West Point, making the "return" a bit odd here.
 * Corrected. Got lost in the narrative with that.


 * "Hogun was not satisfied with this task, but his men lacked sufficient weapons to allow them to serve as a combat unit until approximately 400 muskets were requisitioned for them" - this feels like it should have a date at the end - i.e. he lacked sufficient weapons... until XX date". This would differentiate it clearly from a generic requirement.
 * I think the "end date" comes with the next paragraph; I see what you're saying, though, and so I've modified some of the language to be closer to the source. Let me know if this is sufficient.


 * Worth linking Philadelphia.
 * Philadelphia is linked in the body, just not in the header.


 * as a result of the "distinguished intrepidity" he had exhibited at Germantown. - I'd be keen that the source of the quote is in the main text (i.e. who said this)
 * It was Burke; moved up his introduction and reworded to fit.


 * " had nominated" - "had already nominated" might make it smoother here
 * Done.


 * "who received the support of nine of the thirteen states (as each state delegation voted as one)" - I'm not convinced you need the bracketed bit here.
 * Moved to a footnote.


 * "where he was to be placed under the command" - why the conditional here? (i.e. why not "where he was placed under the command..."?
 * Agreed, changed.


 * "Because of Charleston's location on a peninsula, Lincoln aligned his Continental units in defensive works such as redoubts, redans, and batteries, connected by a parapet that ran across the "neck" of the peninsula, with a concrete hornwork that served as his command post jutting out from the parapet." - not the easiest sentence, as the link between the peninsula and the "neck" gets lost. I'd recommend something like "Charleston was located on a peninsula, and Lincoln positioned his Continental units to block off the "neck" of the headland using a line of redoubts, redans, and batteries. These defences were linked by a parapet, and commanded from a concrete hornwork that jutted out from the defensive line."
 * Agreed, changed.


 * "from the civil authority" - "civil authority", or "civil authorities"?
 * I chose the plural, and changed.''


 * "the British and Patriot forces exchanged artillery and rifle fire throughout the days and nights, the British bombardment whittling down the American breastworks" - I'm not sure about the phrase "throughout the days and nights"; it might work better at the start of the sentence perhaps, or in the singular - e.g. "through the day and night"
 * I guess I was trying to convey that it occurred over multiple days and nights, but I have changed to make a little more sense.


 * "When these were rejected," - this doesn't quite match with the preceeding sentence, which talked about negotiating terms (you can proffer or propose terms, which are then rejected by the other side, but you can't negotiate terms which are then rejected, unless the rejection is by a third party).
 * Agreed, changed to "offer" instead of "negotiate".


 * "Despite this, the British held only the officers at Haddrel's Point" - doesn't quite make sense; the British decision (I presume) wasn't despite Hogun's decision to refuse parole. I'd suggest, "The British, however, decided to hold the officers separately at Haddrel's Point..."
 * Agreed, changed.


 * "denied permission to fish for much-needed food" - "to fish to catch much-needed food"?
 * I think that makes it a little clumsy, but I've reworded - let me know if it sounds alright.


 * "North Carolina jurist and historian Walter Clark noted" - I'd date this in the main text, given the age, e.g. "noted at the start of the 20th century that..." Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and done.
 * Many thanks for your review! I have addressed all your comments above in italics; if you are not comfortable with me doing so, feel free to refactor my comments so that they are entirely below yours. Please let me know if there is anything else you see that needs changing, and I will be happy to take another look!   Cdtew  (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason the FAC page summary isn't accurate; this article has now garnered 3 supports from reviewers (not 2), I have completely addressed the comments from one viewer who has apparently dropped off the face of Wiki since December, and the only other comments are a Source Review and Image Review from Nikki, which I believe I have addressed fully. I'm happy to address more comments or concerns, but this one has been sitting stale for a couple of weeks.  It's not looking like more reviews are forthcoming.  Cdtew  (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.