Wikipedia:Featured article review/Isaac Brock/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 08:39, 5 August 2008.

Review commentary
Notified: WikiProject Canada; WikiProject Military history: British military history task force, Napoleonic era task force, Canadian military history task force; WikiProject Biography: Military work group, Politics and government work group Ultra! 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the only significant editor (137 edits at the time of writing), and FA nominator, of the article, Scimitar. I have also notified Military history WikiProject, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Canada.

I do believe that this article no longer meets the criteria for an FA-class article. I believe that the article has broken, specifically, 1c and 1d.

In support for my assertion that the article has broken 1c, I would like to provide the following evidence:


 * "best remembered as a brilliant leader and strategist for his actions while stationed in the Canadian colonies." This is a quote of a sentence in the introduction of the article.  This opinion is not cited.


 * "He earned a reputation during his early education as an assiduous student, as well as an exceptional swimmer and boxer." This is also not cited.


 * "He kept a reputation as a physically commanding man throughout his life, and is said to have stood between 6 ft 2 in (1.9 m) and 6 ft 4 in (1.88 and 1.93 m) in height. he was amazingly strong and bright, he also excelled in the arts." Again, no citation.


 * "quick rise through the ranks which many commented on at the time." No citation.


 * "His nephew and biographer (Ferdinand Brock Tupper) asserts that shortly after joining the regiment, a professional dueler forced a match on him. As the one being challenged, Brock had his choice of terms, and so he insisted that they fight with pistols. His friends were shocked, as Brock was considered only a moderately good shot, while this man was an expert. Brock, however, refused to change his mind. When the duelist arrived at the field, he asked Brock to decide how many paces they would take. Brock subsequently insisted that the duel would take place, not at the usual range, but at handkerchief distance. The duelist declined and subsequently was forced to leave the regiment. This contributed to Brock's popularity and reputation among his fellow officers, as this duellist had a formidable reputation, and thus bullied other officers without fear of reprisal. During his time with this regiment, Brock served in the Caribbean. At some point during his service there, Brock fell ill with fever and nearly died; only recovering once he had returned to England." No citations presented.

At this point, I believe I have shown the article breaks 1c. It should be noted that the article only has 10 citations. This leaves a lot of the article unsourced.

In support for my assertion that the article has broken 1d, I would like to provide the following evidence:


 * "he had the privilege of serving alongside Tecumseh". I think this comment speaks for itself.

There is more evidence that can be provided, but I do not wish to clog this request with a large amount of evidence. I hope that a quick visual examination of the article by editors will result in the realisation that this article is unworthy of FA-status in its current state.

Thank you in advance for reading, and for getting involved on this issue.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There are undoubtedly some rather POV sentences, and not much inline citing. However, there are a number of online sources listed in References, and External links which can probably be used to provide inline cites.  I've also just quickly skimmed his ODNB article, which certainly backs up some of the specific things you pick out above, so I'm not sure it's beyond redemption.  David Underdown (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (sorry, unfamiliar with process) The sentences, admittedly, are POV in some instances, although it would not take much to correct them. All of the uncited references are backed up by the references at the bottom of the page; I didn't realize that inline citation was needed so extensively when I wrote the article.  All that said, I can't say as I'm terribly invested in what happens to the article given that I've since pretty much abandoned Wikipedia as an editor.--Scimitar parley 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just cited a bunch of the opinions, thanks to Tupper's book (available at project Gutenberg, if anyone doubts my veracity). My wording is actually quite restrained compared to the praise heaped upon Brock by virtually every commentator in the field.  I dare say that these citations (which took about 5 minutes) would have been done if it had been brought up during the FA process, and also that the editor who nominated this article for removal might have been able to do them himself from the provided references in less time than it took to nominate the article!  --Scimitar parley 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, looking at the FAC for this article, I'm reminded of the fact that at that time nobdy seemed to feel that massive inline citation was a big deal, the article text is not controversial and is adequately backed up by the references at the bottom of the page. It's been quite a while since I was a serious editor here, so this is an honest question- when did inline citation become a requirement for non-controversial featured articles that are heavily referenced otherwise?--Scimitar parley 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"the editor who nominated this article for removal" Scimitar, I nominated this article for a review, as opposed for it to be removed.

I believe that Scimitar has made good progress in getting the article back up to current FA standards. However, the article still needs much more work, imho. For example, it is stated "The invasion was quickly halted, and Hull withdrew, but this gave Brock the excuse he needed to abandon Prevost's orders." Whilst I am sure this is correct, it does sound like something that needs to be verified. Listing what sources of information were employed in the writing of the article at the bottom of the page, is not sufficient for an FA-class article.

Other examples of sentences that do sound like they need to be verified include:


 * "Detroit was a major victory for Brock because it wounded American morale, and eliminated the main American force in the area as a threat, while at the same time boosting morale among his own forces."
 * "Finally, it secured the support of Tecumseh and the other American Indian chiefs, who took it as both a sign of competency and a willingness to take action.
 * "However, Brock had gauged Hull as a timid man, and particularly as being afraid of Tecumseh's natives."
 * "He was hampered in these efforts by the thrusts of Governor General George Prevost (Prevost replaced Craig in late 1811), who favoured a cautious approach to the war."
 * "This hostility came from three sources: grievances at British violations of American sovereignty, restriction of American trade by Britain, and an American desire to gain territory by invading and annexing the poorly-defended British North American colonies." Some people will consider this statement controverisal, as some people argue that the American desire to conquer Canada did not exist to a great enough degree for it to be a reason for the War of 1812 occuring.

Scimitar, I do not know how the criteria for FA articles has changed exactly since 2005, but it is clear that they have changed. More is required of an article in 2008 for it to become FA-class, then it did in 2005. As one editor said regarding the FA review of an article called Brain Close, "Holy cow. It illustrates how much FA standards have risen in just a few years." EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I saw that this article was up for FA review, and have tried to make a few improvements. If the problems are only those listed above by EasyPeasy21 and others, they should be straightforward to fix. The four bulleted items listed just above by EP are what all the books say, with the possible exception of the last. It's just a small matter of referencing them properly. I hope to do more work on this myself between now and June 18. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixes needed; I fixed the ref placement. There are spaced emdashes; the article should consistently use either unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes.  There are missing hyphens and WP:MOSNUM issues (spelling out numbers vs. digits).  External links might need pruning per WP:EL, and there are a few unformatted citations (see WP:CITE/ES). Also, decide if references have author last name first or first name first, be consistent.  Overall, not in bad shape.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

*I still think this needs work. There are some quotes that need citations, and the section on his early life is very short, which raises concerns about comprehensiveness. I'm going to try to help out a little next week. DrKiernan (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do not believe that the article is yet at FA standard, for the reasons that DrKiernan has stated. However, I believe that it is realistic to say that this article can be brought to that level soon.  As a result, I am neither for or against downgrading the article atm.  EasyPeasy21 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

*There's a problem with the main image. I've nominated it for deletion at commons. Two of the others are missing sources. I've tagged them and notified the uploaders. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Still some work going on, so leaving this up. Marskell (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Work is progressing nicely, and on a quick flyover, I don't see glaring issues, but there is still quite a bit of citation needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the concerns raised in the review have been addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.