Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Massachusetts in the American Civil War/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 by SandyGeorgia 17:53, 7 August 2010.

Massachusetts in the American Civil War

 * Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this meets featured article criteria and am seeking any feedback to get the article to that status. If this successfully makes FA, I think it would be a good centerpiece article for a Featured Topic. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media When was the 3D artwork File:JohnAlbionAndrewStatue.jpg put on display? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1875 according to this. Historical Perspective (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please annotate the image to reflect this, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've taken care of that. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: David Leip should be shown as the publisher of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Otherwise, all sources look good, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added a better source listing for Leip's website under the References section using the cite web template and listing Leip as the publisher. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: File:SpringfieldMA Oldarm.gif needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not acceptable.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to determine a source for that image, so I have replaced it with a modern photograph from the National Park Service website. I believe I have provided a proper source in the file description.  Historical Perspective (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, thanks. Эlcobbola  talk 16:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ♯ ♭ 14:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Neutral pending copyedit.  ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ♯ ♭ 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead is extremely choppy.
 * "In terms of" shows up twice.
 * Overuse of "radical". Also, "espoused" shows up twice in a paragraph.
 * "The Republican Party, formed in 1854, represented an alliance of many different political movements." doesn't seem directly relevant to the subject at hand and interrupts flow.
 * "Only two states (Vermont and Minnesota) had a larger percentage of the popular vote supporting Lincoln." seems a bit like synthesis to me.
 * "and 28 percent voting for the Democratic candidate, George B. McClellan." strikes me as irrelevant or framed improperly.
 * "his largest margin of victory occurring in 1864 with 71 percent of the popular vote." Perhaps the smallest margin would prove this point better?
 * I think the fact that the smallest margin of victory was 61 percent is sufficient, but I'm also fine with the way it is now.
 * "The 6th Massachusetts, after having been attacked by a pro-secession mob in Baltimore, was the first volunteer regiment to reach Washington, DC on April 19, 1861 and was quartered in the Senate Chamber." links two unrelated events. Also try to work on the wording: "after having been" is unwieldy.
 * "The first, the 54th, received tremendous publicity and strong financial support from Boston’s elite families.[21] Andrew convinced Robert Gould Shaw, son of prominent Bostonians, to accept the colonelcy. The 54th Massachusetts won fame in their assault on Battery Wagner on Morris Island in Charleston Harbor during which Col. Shaw was killed.[21] The regiment's participation in the rear guard during the retreat of Union forces at the Battle of Olustee in Florida, saved that small army from destruction.[22] The story of the 54th Massachusetts was the basis for the film Glory." seems to be a list of facts and is thus very choppy. This occurs elsewhere as well: try making changes like this.
 * I have no idea what either the "Department of the North" or the "Department of the East" are. Perhaps redlink them with the potential of establishing articles?
 * I still have no idea what these are, by the way.
 * More raw listing: "Another key source of war supplies was the Watertown Arsenal, which produced ammunition, gun carriages and leather military accouterments. Private companies such as Smith & Wesson enjoyed significant U.S. government contracts to produce weapons and ammunition. The Ames Manufacturing Company of Chicopee, Massachusetts became one of the nation’s leading suppliers of swords, side arms, cannons, and the third largest supplier of heavy ordnance."
 * "She had a reputation for rejecting nurses who were too young or attractive." is an interesting fact, but needs to be better incorporated into the text instead of plopped down in the middle of it.
 * The introductory sentences, and those in "Relief organizations" specifically, often feel choppy to me. "Approach" in particular is overused in this section.
 * "In the summer of 1861, perceiving a shortage of food and medical supplies in the growing Union army, Barton began personally purchasing and distributing all she could." All she could?
 * "Despite the loss of a major leader, the Republican Party in Massachusetts would become stronger than ever after the Civil War." Stronger than ever is unsubstantiated.
 * I'm not seeing where the source states, in no uncertain terms, "stronger than ever."
 * Not sure if we outright link to Categories in articles.
 * Not quite sure why you have a "Links to related articles" surrounding an already-collapsed American Civil War.
 * The American Civil War portal is already linked in See-Also; the mention under the bottom template is excessive.
 * Are your sources entirely available via Google Books? Have you looked for books not available via Google?

All in all, my most significant concern is flow: I would really like a copyeditor to look through this. Prose is very formulaic and often seems like a list of facts. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR ♯ ♭ 14:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only major concern for the second look-through is my sourcing issue with "stronger than ever." By the way, ref 31 is missing a page number, I believe. Good work on the prose, it's looking loads smoother now. A third pair of eyes on prose wouldn't hurt any, though. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  ♯ ♭ 13:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Response. Hi.  Thanks for your comments.  I believe I've addressed just about all your specific concerns.  Your general concern about the prose I have tried to address by re-vamping several paragraphs.  Your observation about listing facts is well taken.  But in large part that is due to the nature of the article and I beg a bit of indulgence in that regard.  The idea here was to include as many significant politicians, corporations, activists, soldiers, etc. as possible to provide a good idea of the scope of Massachusetts's involvement.  To do this, the prose does need to include some lists.  But, again, I've made some edits and tried to remedy this.  Here's what I've done, corresponding to your bullet points:
 * Significantly edited the lead, trying to focus on a better flow of one paragraph to the other.
 * Took out multiple uses of "radical" and "espoused." Although "Radical Republicans" and "Radical Reconstruction" were actual terms of the period, so I left those alone.
 * Took out the irrelevant bit about the Republican party formation.
 * Took out the bit about Vermont and Minnesota. I was trying to provide context with this, but I agree it could be interpreted as synthesis.
 * Took out the bit about votes for George McClellan.
 * Agreed. I decided to include both&mdash;the stats on his smallest and largest margins of victory.
 * Re-wrote the paragraph on the 6th Massachusetts. Hope it reads better.
 * Re-wrote part of the paragraph on the 54th Massachusetts. Same as above.
 * Added the suggested redlinks.
 * On the listing re: munitions suppliers, I did not make any changes here. I think it's fairly clear in the context of that paragraph that the aim is to briefly describe several additional manufacturers without getting into great detail about them.
 * I removed the multiple instances of "approach."
 * "All she could" was a poor phrase, yes. Took it out.  I also made some significant edits to the prose on the paragraphs about Dix and Barton.  I think they read more smoothly now.
 * Added a citation re: the strength of the Republican Party. And I think the following sentence fairly well sums up their dominance.
 * Took out the category in see-also. That was misplaced.
 * The "Links to related articles" was added at the request of a reviewer (during A-class) who felt the Civil War template was distracting. The template is fairly standard for States in the Civil War articles, so I wanted to keep it, but collapsed it with the templates box.  I've removed the templates box.  You're right, it's didn't belong.
 * Good point. I removed the duplicate Civil War portal in "See also."
 * As for how I physically obtain sources (i.e. electronic or looking for actual books), I always go for what's on my bookshelf first. About half of the references are books I own.  I simply include the Google link so that people can have easy access to them.  I supplement with sources found on Google books.
 * Thanks again for the comments. Let me know what else you think I can do to improve this.  Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Response to NocturneNoir: Following up on your additional comments...
 * I took out duplicate "in terms of"
 * I briefly defined the Departments of the North and East
 * I see what you mean, now, about "stronger than ever." That was unintended hyperbole.  I've altered the sentence.
 * Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I agree with NocturneNoir that the flow needs work, and that the various facts in the article are not well-moulded into a cohesive whole. There is also a great deal of redundancy; I've eliminated some through copyediting, but more needs to be done. I'll try to give it another read through in a few days and make further improvements. Some specific questions for now:
 * "Massachusetts, as a leading center of industry and manufacturing, was poised to become a major producer of munitions and supplies." Was poised to become, or did become?
 * "Massachusetts played a major role in Civil War causation, particularly with regard to the political ramifications of the antislavery movement." This is a really awkward sentence, but I can't think of a better formulation offhand. I'll work on it.
 * "The Free Soil Party was eventually absorbed into the Republican Party, which became the dominant political party in Massachusetts." When did this take place? Specificity would be better than "eventually".
 * "Generals from Massachusetts commanded several army departments..." Is "departments" the right word, there? Not "units"?
 * "Official statistics are not available for the number of wounded." What about unofficial statistics? Steve Smith (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


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