Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Henry Ludington/1

Henry Ludington

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Henry_Ludington/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The article relies heavily on the 1907 work by Johnson which mentions being written by their relatives and is said to be unreliable. Gusfriend (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree on a second look. Hunt's commentary is particularly convincing about the reliability of Johnson. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * in defense of your GA review, at the time you passed the article, Johnson was listed as being published by Harvard University, so it appeared to be a reliable source, but the citation as written was misleading. The archive.org version was uploaded from Harvard library, although the title pages state it was published by his grandchildren. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting this. Very interesting. Thats... still frustrating to me. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any way that you could have been expected to pick this up; we are somewhat dependent on AGF, this was not easily uncovered, and it was the editor who wrote the citation and the article that should have taken greater care. I only became aware of the debacle that Wikipedia has created throughout the Ludington family series after seeing reports about Sybil Ludington as the "female Paul Revere" on Facebook that didn't pass the duck test, and discovered from there Wikipedia's role in promoting that meme. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, for the same reasons, might want to have a fresh look at Ludington family, another GA in this series.  (I haven't looked closely at it for undue promotional statements based on Johnson's book and followups to his work.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - Taking at look at all that article's sources, the Ludington family article does not primarily rely on the (somewhat/basically/charming but not reputable?..) refuted source of Johnson's "memoir". The Sybil section should be re-written according to editorial consensus and Johnson's memoir cite removed from other sections but at this time I think the Ludington family article should retain its GA designation. Am happy to reassess more in-depth though if needful. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm quite swamped IRL right now, so apologies for the brevity. If memory serves, I already corrected at Ludington family the worst parts of Sybil, but what I don't know is whether other sources used at that article are just parroting the dubious Johnson work (as are some of the sources in this article).  A deeper dive in to some of the other sources might be warranted, but I really haven't taken the time to look closely. My recollection aligns with your impression (that the GA there is not in jeopardy). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to the issues with the nominator of the Luddington family page (who also nominated this page and a number of other GAs that are being re-examined) I suspect that a more in depth analysis there will be required if only from a CCI perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OH, dear. I had forgotten that there is a CCI on the original editor ... I fear that my extensive corrections already throughout the Ludington family suite could have obscured any original copyvio that might have been there before. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With a very heavy reliance on a source that is not third-party or independent, and is not viewed by historians as neutral, I don't believe this article should be a GA. Further, as described above, several of the other sources used also rely on Johnson.
 * According to Paula Hunt, writing in The New England Quarterly in 2015, Johnson's Colonel Henry Ludington: A Memoir was published privately by his grandchildren, Charles H. and Lavinia Elizabeth Ludington. (Hunt, 2015, p. 192) The biography, according to Hunt, "offers a laudatory account" of the colonel's life; Hunt states that it "was certainly not of the order of Johnson’s usual projects", noting that it was omitted from his New York Times obituary. (Hunt 2015, p. 193) She writes that the New England Historical & Genealogical Register reviewed it as a "charming, simple memoir", which she says was intended to "remedy a belief that the Revolution-era militia and its officers had not received the recognition they deserved and to ensure the colonel's place in American history", citing page vii of the Memoirs. (Hunt, 2015, pp. 193–194) She characterized the work as a "not wholly reliable source". (Hunt, 2015, p. 189)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delist - Johnson shouldn't be used and the (lightly-used) waymarking isn't really a RS either. Hog Farm Talk 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)