Wikipedia:Peer review/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1

James Moore (Continental Army officer)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for FAC, but am concerned about it's perhaps unorthodox nature. This figure was a very important military figure in the American Revolution in North Carolina, but did not live long, and not much is written about him in modern scholarship. I believe I've been able to dig up a comprehensive array of sources on his life, yet still there's a lack of information at points (and a lack of illustration at times, including no pictures of the subject himself), and I was hoping to get the community's thoughts. Also looking for issues with structure, citations, etc., and possibly a spot-check. Thanks,  Cdtew  (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the reviewers for this article at MilHist A-Class, I don't see why this shouldn't be suitable for FAC. Although I'm not an expert in this particular area, it seems logically structured and sufficiently detailed for Featured status (if I happen to review at FAC, I'll obviously recuse myself from delegate duties). I recall mentioning at ACR that I'd make a spotcheck of sources if I had time, owing to subject-matter ignorance, but this may not be required at FAC; it's standard practice for first-time nominees (and periodically for old hands) but I realise now you've been there before and had a spotcheck that didn't reveal major issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments by Ian Rose

Comments: looks like a well constructed article. I mainly looked at minor presentation issues:
 * date format inconsistency: "Retrieved February 5, 2013" v "Retrieved 2009-04-03"
 * Done.


 * in the Bibliography, publisher location/abbreviation inconsistency: "Madison, Wisconsin" v. "Greensboro, NC"
 * Done.


 * in the Bibliography, the majority of your titles are presented using title case, but the Ashe 1905, Clark 1906 and Wright works do not employ this;
 * Fixed for Ashe and Clark, but not done for Wright, as that was the way the title was presented as published, and given that it's a long descriptive title of the speech he gave, rather than an official title. Let me know if you think this will be a problem


 * are there pages numbers that could be added to the Bibliography for the Clark chapter in the Ashe work? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.

Thank you for the comments, Rupert! I've added my responses in italics below yours. Let me know if you see anything else!  Cdtew  (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)