Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William T. Anderson/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 GrahamColm 18:11, 20 June 2012.

William T. Anderson

 * Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

William T. Anderson was one of the deadliest Confederate guerrillas in the American Civil War, though he died by the age of 25. Anderson was a run of the mill horse thief in Kansas until his father and sister were killed by Union forces; he subsequently devoted his life to revenge. Historians have debated whether he was a consummate sadist, or merely forced to resort to violence by the times in which he lived. This article has been peer reviewed and passed as a GA and a MilHist A-class article. Thanks to all the people who helped review and copyedit this, I think it now meets the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks interesting, don't know if I'll be able to do a full review. On skimming I noticed this - "In the late 1850s, Ellis Anderson fled to Iowa" - Who is Ellis?  I saw mention of a brother Elias but didn't see mention of Ellis beforehand.  Blue  Bonnet   17:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, this is a pretty long article, so it's understandable if you don't have time for the whole thing. Ellis is the right name, the other was a typo on my part, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments: This looks very good so far; interesting and well written. I've read down to the end of "Horse trading and outlawry" so far. Just a few minor comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Hopefully more to follow later. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Historians formed disparate appraisals of Anderson": Not sure you can form an appraisal. Either made an appraisal or formed disparate views possibly?
 * "In 1856, William C. Anderson transported freight to New Mexico on a wagon train, and upon his return, built a cabin in Kansas.": Suggests he did this just once. Seems a little odd to include a one-off job of his father, if this is actually a one-off.
 * "after the man allegedly tried to rob him as he traveled outside of Council Grove": Not a fan of "allegedly". Who is alleging? If it was Anderson's claim, I think it should be made clear.
 * "purportedly because his horses had disappeared with the cargo": Similar problem: purported by who?
 * Thanks for the comments, changed the first and clarified the last two. I had originally included the information about his dad's trip to New Mexico because it gave Anderson the idea to do the same, but I guess it's not necessary so I removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

More comments: Up to the end of "Texas". Looking extremely good. Nitpicks only: Sarastro1 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "the state suffered up to 25,000 deaths from guerrilla warfare, more than any other state.": I suspect this may be an issue with the source, but it may be better, if possible, to give a minimum number. Saying "up to" leaves too much wiggle room to state that it was more than any other state. It may be better to rephrase if possible, but not an issue if nothing can be done.
 * "…Quantrill's Raiders on a raid near Council Grove": Raiders…raid. Possibly rephrase?
 * "Castel and Goodrich speculated that this raid may have given Quantrill the idea of a launching an attack deep in Kansas": Not a big issue, but why would a raid in which some of his men were captured and killed give him this idea. Does not quite follow.
 * "Anderson apparently believed this": Apparently sounds a little weak. It may be better to say "may have". I think uncertainty is better than "apparently", but if it can be firmed up, even better.
 * It is not clear in this section how much Anderson was acting independently and how much he was under the "control" of Quantrill. Could this be clarified, or is it not known?
 * "Anderson did not noticeably change after his marriage": This seems to be a bit of a random comment in the middle of the narrative. Is there any particular reason that he would have done? More interesting is why did he marry so quickly?
 * "Wood,[63] Castel and Goodrich,[64] and Daniel Sutherland of the University of Arkansas[65] record that this incident angered Anderson": Unless there is significant opposition to this idea, why do we need to record this as the opinion of four historians? Even if it is controversial, maybe just say something like "it is likely" would be enough? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, good comments. I've tried to clarify the issues you pointed out. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: This is a great read. The prose is excellent and everything is clearly explained and set in context. Although I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness or sourcing, knowing nothing about this period of history or the people involved, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it! Just three more minor points which do not affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "In June 1864, Todd usurped Quantrill's leadership of their group, forcing him to leave the area": Not clear who "him" is.
 * "On August 27, Union soldiers killed at least three of Anderson's men, and the next day, the 4th Missouri Volunteer Cavalry pursued them, but Anderson launched an ambush that killed seven Union soldiers": Where did all this take place?
 * "Anderson visited Confederate sympathizers as he traveled, some of whom viewed him as a hero for fighting the Union. Many of Anderson's men had a deep hatred of the Union, and he was adept at tapping into this emotion." I can't quite see the connection between these sentences. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support, glad that you liked it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments from Crisco 1492
 * Image review:
 * File:Bloody-bill-anderson.jpg is fine.
 * File:Quantrill.png - "because first published prior to 1923." should be changed to "because this anonymous work was created more than 120 years ago". You have no proof of publishing yet. Template should be PD-US-unpublished
 * File:Battle of Lawrence.png is fine.
 * File:General Order No 11.jpg is fine.
 * File:William T. Anderson in sherman.jpg the image is certainly PD, but not for the reason listed. As the US law is 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is less, I think the safer way would be to indicate that more than 120 years have passed since the image was created. Template should be PD-US-unpublished
 * File:Jesse and Frank James.gif - None of the links are working for me. Probably PD as an anonymous work.
 * File:William T Anderson death.jpg - As we don't know Kice's date of death and have no indication of the original publication date, I think (per the Hirtle chart it should be marked as PD since it is 120 years since creation and the date of death is unknown. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't self-defense be hyphenated under 'claim of self defense'? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have reviewed the changes since I reviewed at A-class. No further comments on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the review. I tried to tweak the permissions on those files to indicate that they were definitely created more than 120 years ago. The template you link to is a redlink, I just have PD-US on the files with the more than 120 years part in the permission. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a redlink on Commons (several of images above are on Commons) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, Ok, I added it to the commons images. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on prose and images. Double check to see if any of the files hosted on Wikipedia are already on Commons; I'll delete any of the redundant files for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, guess so, added. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support
 * Reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist A-Class Review.
 * Reviewing changes since then, while I don't think all have been necessary from a prose perspective, I don't think they've done any harm; just found one slightly 'off' phrase this time round, and corrected.
 * I spotchecked a few sources in Mark's last FAC and found only a couple of relatively minor things that needed tweaking so don't feel the necessity to see one here; I am of course speaking purely as a reviewer here, and not on behalf of other delegates... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and your comments at the A-class review! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I was enjoyed the U.S. Civil War topic (obviously, not the war itself, I don't like bloodshed) and it's quite good to see lesser known figures having their own spotlight here. I wonder how hard it must have been to do the research. This article is very well written to the point that a non-American like myself, with basic knowledge (I wouldn't dare to call myself an experienced reader) of U.S. history is quite able to enjoy and understand with no problem at all the context given. I give my full support to this one. --Lecen (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and praise, I'm glad that you liked it. I wasn't too familiar with this part of the Civil War, I hadn't heard of Anderson until I reverted some vandalism while patrolling recent changes. Perhaps my own lack of Civil War expertise made me more inclined to add context. The research took a lot of reading, I had to take a break from it halfway through and work on other projects for a while. I'm glad I came back to it though! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So far so good, down to where I stopped, William_T._Anderson. I did some minor copyediting. Good job. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the copyediting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. I participated in this article's peer review and thought it was very, very close to FA standard at that time. Just took the time to re-read it, and found nothing even worth quibbling about. A deserving FAC. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


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