Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/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, 9 June 2013 (UTC).

James Moore (Continental Army officer)

 * Nominator(s):  Cdtew  (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This article, on a military figure who was perhaps one one of the lesser-known "what if's" of the American Revolutionary War, but about whom little is written in modern scholarship, has been painstakingly re-written with all of the sources I could possibly find on the subject. Where I couldn't get ready online access to sources, I bought them, including some book sources that qualify as antiques. This article is concise, but comprehensive, and is one of the key parts of my plans to make a Featured Topic out of North Carolina's Continental Army Generals. This is just my second foray into FAC, but I am happy to make any changes the community finds necessary. I appreciate your assistance in this review.  Cdtew  (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest not linking United Colonies flag icon to United States, especially as the US flag icon doesn't link there and they are separate entries in the infobox
 * When an image has multiple credited authors, should specify to which the "life time" annotation applies
 * File:NCMooresCreek1.png: what source was used to plot the troop movements?
 * File:Sir_Henry_Clinton.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Responses:
 * Flags: Done. I decided to try and be consistent with other AmRevWar pages (Benjamin Lincoln and George Washington, for instance) and put just KoGB and USA.
 * Life time: Done.
 * Source for troop movements: Pending Done. That was a creation of User:Magicpiano, and I'm inquiring with him for a quick answer.  If, however, I don't get a response, I can cite to a source that confirms those general movements (obviously the arrows don't adhere strictly to the movements, but are directional in nature).
 * Clinton: Done. This poses an interesting question, though – the image that I found at  has a claim that it's protected by "National Army Museum Copyright".  I'm presuming this is some derivative of Crown copyright?  Or is there something I should be concerned about in terms of it not being validly PD?  I would really like to upload the version of the picture they have on their website, but I don't know if that would make matters worse.  If it's going to be a problem, there are many other images of Clinton I could use.
 * Follow-up: I've gone ahead and decided to forego the headache, and have replaced it with a much more impeccably sourced and attributed picture.  Cdtew  (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Nikki - let me know if there are any other issues, and I will try to get back to you on Magicpiano's map.  Cdtew  (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In re File:NCMooresCreek1.png, I'm not sure I understand the problem. I imagine the short answer is that this map is based on the sources used in Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge that describe the various movements, and the drawings were done using Inkscape.  If this doesn't address the issue, you'll have to elaborate on what exactly the concern is.  Magic ♪piano 00:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what Nikki was getting at is that we'd likely need a source citation for the information used to create the maps. It shouldn't be hard for me to pull one from the article itself, but I didn't know if you used one in particular when creating the map.  Sorry, didn't mean to be so vague.   Cdtew  (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not your vagary; I'd just like to understand what Nikki's asking for so that a proper response can be made.  Magic ♪piano 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cdtew's got it: the drawings are fine, I'm just wondering how you knew which lines went where. Was it based on what was written in the article? (In which case, depending on how the article developed, you might need to specify which version). Did you look at source material directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the lines don't follow the movements with precision, they are more generalized point-to-point indicators based on my reading of the sources (if the sources say that one force went from Cross Creek toward Moore's Creek, draw an arrow that way; repeat as needed for other movements). I did substantial work on the battle article, and had access to all of the relevant sources.  If you would like the file description to include those sources, that should be easy enough to do.  Magic ♪piano 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.  Magic ♪piano 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Recusing from my delegate duties for this one; I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and having checked changes made since then I'm happy to support for FA. I don't pretend to be an expert on this area but coverage seems adequate and unbiased, and structure, prose, referencing and supporting materials satisfactory. Rechecked here for dab/duplinks and found none. Only minor quibble, in the lead: "In addition to his military involvement, he was active in the independence movement, despite having been a supporter of the colonial government during his early career. Moore was active in local Sons of Liberty organizations... -- can we avoid repeating "was active", e.g. replace one with "played a prominent role" or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - Many thanks for the comments and support!  Cdtew  (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Comments
 * Lead, link Cape Fear River?
 * Done.


 * Note 1, "appears most frequently among in his biographies" - Either among or in I think, not both.
 * Done.


 * Be consistent in linking either in the the lead and in the body or only in one. There are some terms linked only in the body, some linked only in the lead and some linked in both. Besides the above Cape Fear River, I see Battle of Alamance, which is linked in the lead but not the body.
 * Done - at the risk of overlinking, I've linked both in body and in lead.


 * Revolutionary activities, "Moore bested Ashe by only a single vote in the Provincial Congress." Do we know if this caused discord within the family or the militia?
 * Not done - I've looked in both Moore's biographies and Ashe's biographies, and I can't see where any strain in familial relations is mentioned. I do know, however, that Ashe received a Major General's commission in the state militia, and was made state treasurer, both of which were more prestigious and influential positions at the time.


 * Moore's Creek Bridge, "A force of approximately 1,400[22] Highland Scots loyal to Britain" Were these Scots already living in the colonies, or were they transported from Scotland? The current wording could go either way.
 * Clarified - currently living in North Carolina.


 * Continental Army general, "On October 23, 1776, the Council ordered Moore" - This sentence is quite long, and could quite easily be split after "Wilmington".
 * Done


 * Continental Army general, "to remain in North Carolina and for his troops to winter" - This doesn't feel quite right, grammatically. Maybe "to remain in North Carolina and winter his troops"? Basically, removing the bit about Moore, the sentence would read "ordered for his troops to winter"...
 * Done per your suggestion.


 * Continental Army general, "instructions that Moore was to assist" - "instructions for Moore to assist"?
 * Done

Overall, looks quite good. The above are fairly minor; I look forward to supporting once they are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your valuable input. I believe I've addressed everything that I can at this moment -- please let me know if the one unresolved item needs more input, or if it's satisfactory.  Thanks again!  Cdtew  (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I have added my support above. I was mainly curious about the potential family strife, not a big worry. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.