Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Howe (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:Ian Rose 10:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)

 * Nominator(s):  Cdtew  (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The next article in my series on North Carolina's Continental Army generals during the American Revolutionary War is Robert Howe, North Carolina's sole Major General on the Continental establishment. Howe was a relatively controversial commander, a failed tactician, a duelist, and possibly an attempted spy for the British. All around, that makes for a fascinating character, whose story I believe I've captured fully. There are only a handful of lengthy sources discussing Howe's career in existence, and I don't believe I'm lacking for any detail. Thank you in advance for your reviews!  Cdtew  (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I realize the linkchecker is saying I have a dead link to an NYT movie review; the link's not functionally dead, and I've tried everything I know how to resolve it; any expert help would be appreciated.  Cdtew  (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This page needs to be transcluded to the FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! I did this at work yesterday and got caught up in something else, completely forgot to do that.  Thanks for the reminder.   Cdtew  (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: ''I will be on vacation between July 12 and July 20, and may not be able to respond to suggestions on this page. I will get right back to responding at full force when I return.''  Cdtew  (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I'm back from vacation and welcome further reviews. So far no comprehensive ones.  Cdtew  (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Support per new standard disclaimer. I've checked the changes since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN100: title formatting
 * Check edition formatting
 * Compare publisher for Powell and Whitaker. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done -- (I think) -- except for the last one. UNC Press is a full-service publisher, but wasn't founded until 1922; prior to that there existed a different entity, which was not a full-service publisher, but was literally (as I understand it) a "press".  Powell was published by the former, Whitaker was published in 1908 by the latter.  That's why I can't do anything about the publishers.  I appreciate your comments!  Let me know if you see anything else I can improve, or if I did something wrong.   Cdtew  (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: please seek additional sources on the attack on Verplanck's Point. Specifically, Rankin appears to be in error: Israel Putnam was no longer commanding in the Highlands at the time of the Battle of Stony Point, and it is probably Col. Rufus Putnam, who led the initial demonstration against Verplanck's point, who is meant. Stricken; I misread, and Gen. Putnam was in local command at the time. Choess (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, we're told that Kendal is "upriver from Orton Plantation"; did Howe have any particular link to Orton Plantation? This seems tangential. Choess (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Ah, you appear to be correct about Putnam. Since it wasn't the more prominent commander, I've just removed that entirely.  My sources don't say what, if any, interaction Howe had with Rufus Putnam, so I feel comfortable exempting it.
 * No worries, I will revert my past edit then.  Cdtew  (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (2) As for the Orton Plantation mention, I have that in there solely as a reference point (although it was owned by Howe's cousins). Orton is a still-existing, quite famous plantation home in NC, and I would prefer to keep the mention of it in here for context.  Thanks for your comments so far, and for your edits!  Cdtew  (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I appear to have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you have any further comments or review notes.   Cdtew  (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Quadell

At a first read, this article looks to be of high quality. Here are a few issues that jump out at me.


 * File:The unfortunate death of Major Andre, 10-02-1780 - 10-02-1780 - NARA - 535744.tif is tagged as having been created by an employee of the U.S. government, but I don't see any evidence of this. How should it be tagged?
 * Hope you don't mind if I answer between your questions. That picture isn't one I uploaded, but a quick check shows it wasn't a US government production; it was done in 1783-84, and I've thus marked it as PD-US.


 * Footnote 89 references "Rankin 1988, p. 142", but Rankin 1988 only covers pages 218–219. Is that supposed to refer to Rankin 1971, perhaps?
 * Well I'll be damned. That's actually Bennett/Lennon (1991).  I've now corrected.  I checked the other cites, and they appear to be correct.


 * The bibliography frequently links the titles to the Google Books entries for the book in question. But when there is an ISBN present, this is redundant, since the ISBN will link the reader to host of places to find more information, including Google Books. The documentation for the "cite book" template specifies that the URL should be used for "an online location where the text of the publication can be found" but instructs "Do not link to any commercial booksellers such as Amazon.com". Thus the link to the free online version of Gobold's Gadsen is correct, but the link to Google's invitation to buy Kars' Breaking Loose Together for $19.25 is not.
 * I've never really thought about that. Generally I like leaving a Google Books link even when it's snippet view, just because I believe the ease of access improves the reader's experience, regardless of how little the reader can see.  When it's not in snippet view or more, you're right, and I've deleted the two I found that were purely inviting readers to buy the book.

I will more fully review this article when those three issues are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review so far. My responses are below your comments, in italics.  Please let me know if you see anything further you believe needs attention.  Cdtew  (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Very good, nice improvements. I have very few complaints or suggestions for further improvement. The prose is excellent, the organization is just right, the "legacy" section is balanced, and the lede effectively summarizes all of the article. Here are a very few nitpicks:


 * In my opinion, cite 4 should be broken into two. Only in the first use (a) are the Ashe and Rankin comparisons useful.
 * This one was a toughie. After fooling around with the sfn format for a while, I couldn't seem to suppress the postscript in future occurrences of that note.  Instead, I just converted it to harvnb and used the following code on the first appearance: .  I don't really like the way it's coded, and it's too messy for my taste, but that's a template issue (or a "I don't know of the right way to do it" issue), and I agree with your point.


 * The infobox seems to have a problem, wherein the time span of his command at West Point is given as "(1779".
 * Fixed. It was the wrong date anyways.  Text makes it clear it was Feb-Aug 1780.


 * The word "proroguing" is not in common use. Can a more common word be substituted without losing meaning?
 * Ah - you got me where it hurts with this one! I love the word.  But, stepping away from my partiality, I'm not really sure if there is a better word.  There are better words (plural) - forced adjournment, executive closure of a legislative session, etc, but those are less succinct.  It's my understanding that outside the US the word is still used very frequently for the general end of the sessions of parliaments - in fact, Legislative session and Prorogation in Canada are rotten with the term.  In other words, in the UK and commonwealth states, the use of the term is common.  Here (in the U.S.), we've expanded the word "Adjournment" to mean many types of legislative breaks, but I don't believe adjournment was used historically to describe the exact procedure I'm discussing here.  In this context, when an Assembly was prorogued, it would have been illegal for that Assembly to continue to pass laws.  Adjournment, because it's so flexible, doesn't convey that same hard-and-fast limitation, and it would require more explanation if I used it instead.  I could wikilink it to the Prorogation dablink page, which contains a definition -- or perhaps I could put in a Wiktionary box, much like that used in the Legislative session article?  I'd appreciate your thoughts.
 * I don't think a link to Wiktionary would be appropriate. I wish we had an article with better information on the term, but we don't seem to. If that's the best wording, despite its rarity, then so be it. – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Once these are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. – Quadell (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, my responses are below your comments in italics. Many thanks for your comments, and such effusive praise coming from such a prolific and accomplished Wikipedian as yourself is heartening!  Let me know if you think there's any other way to improve this article.   Cdtew  (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. This article deserves featured status. – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-art|PD-age, PD-1923). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoid PD-US as license tag, it's vague and can almost always be replaced by a more specific tag like PD-1923 or PD-US-no-notice (tweaked some, no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I wasn't aware of a preference over the PD-US tag, so I will use more specific ones from now on.  Let me know if you see anything else that you think would bring this up to FA-level.   Cdtew  (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks

I checked the sources listed for references 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 33, 65, 72, 97, 99, and 100. In every case, the sources listed fully supported the statements in the article. Never was text unduly copied from a source in an inappropriate way. I am confident the sourcing is impeccable. – Quadell (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from Ceranthor
 * Lead
 * As a personal friend of Tryon, Howe suffered greatly when his friend became Governor of New York and staunchly opposed Tryon's successor - This sentence is very confusing. What exactly is it trying to say?
 * Continental Army and Patriot militia forces in defeat in the First Battle of Savannah. - Isn't it to defeat?
 * Early life
 * descendant of Governor John Yeamans.[3 - his mother was?
 * Political service
 * In about 1755 - What does that mean?

This is a long article so I'll go slowly through it.  ceran  thor 15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments so far! I've attempted to address your concerns as follows:
 * Clarified the remark re: his friend; I was trying to say Howe was Tryon's friend, and when Tryon went to become governor of NY, Howe both suffered politically/financially and also opposed Tryon's successor.
 * I believe I had it as "to defeat" in an earlier version, but Dank (I believe) suggested in my A-Class Review that "to defeat" sounds a little fatalistic or makes it almost sound like Howe was the sole reason and cause for defeat. "In defeat", I agree, is clearer in that defeat is a very complicated thing.
 * His father was a descendant of John Yeamans; the next sentence makes it clear we're not really sure who his mother was.
 * "In about 1755" - none of the sources know when this actually happened, but they all say "around" or "About" 1755; I've changed it to the former, but I don't really want to get into using "Approximately" or "during or before" language, because that doesn't read well to my mind.
 * Let me know if you see anything else that could be changed, or if you have any comments on my responses. Thanks again!  Cdtew  (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

These are just precursor comments! I'm going to post a lot more, no worries. I'll post more tomorrow, but no promises that I'll finish by then.  ceran  thor 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Post war
 * Howe participated in the establishment of the national Society of the Cincinnati, and was the second officer to sign the national charter, - national is redundant
 * was again forced to mortgage his plantation, but eventually received a monetary settlement of $7,000 in 1785.[94] -from who? should be clear it's congress
 * his way to a meeting of the legislative body, Howe fell ill, dying on December 14, 1786, in Bladen County. - I don't like the second half of this sentence; it could use a ce.
 * Legacy
 * ] In 1940 the - Previously in phrases like "IN 19--" or "During 17--", you'd been using a comma afterwards. Keep this consistent. I think there were a couple other outliers throughout. Check very carefully for these.
 * Loyalist merchant named Henry Kelly advised Secretary of State for the Colonies George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville that Howe could be easily tempted to join the British, and further advising that Howe could offer a great deal to the British in their war effort.[103]- Grammar issue.
 * While neither Washington or the Congressional Board of War believed Joel's story, Joel later fought on behalf of Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia state government against Loyalists in that state.[105] - Why is this relevant?
 * In treating Joel as a witness, I want to present both sides' attempts to accredit or discredit him; in this instance, scholars who've written about the subject point to the fact that Joel was hired by Jefferson shortly after he attempted to defect directly to Washington, and actually had an honorable career serving the Patriot cause as a way of bolstering his credibility; obviously, the counter-argument is that Washington and the BoW believed he was either a spy or someone who would say anything to gain an officer's commission with the Continental Army. Without getting into all that, I wanted to at least present those facts for the reader to make a judgment thereon.


 * one scholar has contrasted Schuyler's otherwise shining reputation with Howe's record of failures, and draws the conclusion that Howe likely was attempting to defect. - Who is this scholar?

I'll finish up the last section as soon as these are resolved. It looks great!  ceran  thor 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed all of your comments in this round, and look forward for more to come.  Cdtew  (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Final Round
 * Burning
 * newly created - I think this should be hyphenated.
 * ravaging the tidewater region - probably should link tidewater
 * North Carolinian - does this refer to Howe or the regiment?
 * engaged in contentious negotiations over access to supplies with the captains of British ships, now overcrowded with Loyalist refugees, anchored in the Norfolk harbor. - Not sure what happened here. Looks like a pronoun was deleted.
 * fire raged on for two more days, and Howe ordered most of the buildings that remained standing to be razed before withdrawing to further render the location useless to the British.[46]  - before he withdrew is better.
 * Charleston
 * North Carolinians who had been poached by the South Carolinians. - This makes it sound as though the people themselves were poached. I think that's the case, but I think this needs a rewrite.
 * Florida
 * the only North Carolinian to reach that rank in the Continental Army.[47 - Ever? If so then this is fine as is.
 * It is what it is -- other North Carolinians have been Major Generals in the US Army, and some were Major Generals of their own militia, but no other was a Major General of the Continental Army


 * which formed the border between Georgia and Florida - does it not anymore?
 * Shortly after this minor incursion, the British were reinforced and pressed toward Savannah.[16 - received reinforcements is clearer and it avoids linking verbs.
 * Removal
 * path was "so remote" - citation?
 * Cite added.  Cdtew  (talk)


 * Hudson
 * but was given few field pieces, entrenching tools or provisions and little ammunition. He - this is a bit of a cluttered mess! What are you trying to say?
 * West Point
 * Howe served on the court-martial board that convicted Arnold's co-conspirator, Major John André, of espionage and sentenced him to death. - source?
 * Cite added. This one got lost when I made a previous edit.  Cdtew  (talk)


 * Mutinies
 * Carlisle ordered Howe to convene a court martial of General Alexander McDougall - I'm not sure but I think there's a grammar mistake here.
 * While "court-martial of" appears to be correct grammatical structure, I don't much like it, so I clarified.  Cdtew  (talk)

Almost done!  ceran  thor 04:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have completed this list of corrections, with my notes above. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs changing.   Cdtew  (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Support  ceran  thor 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.