Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Moore (Continental Army officer)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

James Moore (Continental Army officer)

 * Nominator(s):  Cdtew  (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is a comprehensive and detailed overview of the life of one of North Carolina's five Continental Army generals. Though not much information exists (that I've been able to dredge up) concerning his life outside of the military, and though some central facts (like his birth year and death date) remain somewhat uncertain, I believe this article is thoroughly-researched. I appreciate the reviewers in advance for contributing their time.  Cdtew  (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment: FN31 isn't linking properly, and there are no citations to Clark 1896. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done: Oops. Should be Davis Bellas 1896  Cdtew  (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I missed your comment about Clark 1896 -- it actually is cited, in the note accompanying Fn43. I couldn't figure out a way to link from within the "ps=" field of the ref, but if you know a way, I'm all ears.  Cdtew  (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible to do that by using harvnb within the ps field; I'm not sure if there's a nicer way, but this at least is functional. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done: That has to be the coolest trick I've learned all year. My deepest gratitude!  Cdtew  (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comments, leaning Support -- bit surprised this hasn't attracted more reviews... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Completed my usual prose copyedit, no outstanding issues as far as I'm concerned.
 * Structure and supporting materials, incl. image licensing, look okay.
 * Referencing-wise I haven't done a thorough check a la Nikki but nothing leaps out as questionable, except you have a harv error on FN43.
 * Content/detail-wise, it looks fair to me but I'm not an expert in the area so will try to get round to a spotcheck of sources at some later stage if nobody else does.
 * Response: Ian, thanks for the notes. I am surprised this hasn't gotten much yet as well. Even a terse no or some constructive criticism would be nice. I suppose its what I deserve since I've been too busy with work lately to review anything myself.  Harv error on fn 43 is fixed.   Cdtew  (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks, supporting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. To my surprise (the American War of Independence isn't a topic that generally captivates me) I found this article quite interesting. It's engaging and well written and covers somebody whose contributions may not have been the most famous of his day but are certainly worthy of note. Thanks for bringing it here. I have just a few comments and queries:
 * Were his siblings older or younger?
 * Done as much as I can - Maurice was 2 years older, and that's in the source, but Rebecca was about 4 years older -- I just can't find a valid source confirming that. As is often the case with this era, the wife was just an afterthought in most of the historical writing.  I'll keep digging for a date of birth in a verifiable source.


 * A link would be helpful to explain what "militia" means in this context
 * Done


 * Does the link to brother-in-law add much?
 * Done - Probably not, removed.


 * Highland Scots loyal to the Britain the Britain?
 * Done


 * The British Army and Navy the British navy is the Royal Navy
 * Done


 * Is "upriver" a single word? I've never seen it used that way, but then we Brits tend to be fond of hyphens in cases like this
 * If I can butt in, I understand "upriver" to be standard AmEng... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guessed it would be an ENGVAR thing.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any relation between the subject and Moore's Creek Bridge?
 * Nope - At least, none that I can tell. The creek was named after "Widow" Elizabeth Moore, who apparently was of no relation to the wealthier Moores.


 * the Loyalists attempted to cross over the creek in the early morning hours of February 27 Might be worth reminding the reader of the year here
 * Done


 * after the attempted British assault at Battle of Sullivan's Island At the battle? Or would "at Sullivan's Island" be better?
 * Done - I think I'd meant to pipe in Sullivan's Island, which is what I did.

— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anne, Moore's wife, died within a few months thereafter should probably be "within a few months" or "a few months thereafter", but not both
 * Done - Went with "a few months thereafter."
 * HJ, thank you for your comments. It's a little late where I am, but I will address your comments and critiques fully later today.  Thanks!  Cdtew  (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm a good few hours behind you so take your time, and I'll pop back when you're done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that covers most of your comments. Thanks for taking a look!  Cdtew  (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for broadening my horizons. :) Happy to support. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think he was interesting, you should see his colleague Robert Howe (soldier), an article I just did a complete rewrite and expansion for this past month. He was really fascinating - womanizing, duels, and constant battlefield failure ftw.  I've still got to add a small section on Howe's suspected treason attempts, but luckily its been languishing at GAN.  Anyways, thanks again!  Cdtew  (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * My internet connection is currently unreliable so I have not been able to do the usual technical review.
 * is this right? "...as the Cape Fear was unsuited to mass cultivation ...", → "...as Cape Fear was unsuited to mass cultivation..."
 * Done - The Cape Fear is a river and a cape, but the cape isn't talked about much, if at all, in present parlance. Instead I was using it to refer to the river, much like "the Thames", "the Nile", or "the Amazon".  I've changed this instance, though, for clarity, to read "the lower Cape Fear".
 * "...During that conflict, Moore, a captain at the time...", perhaps consider "...During that conflict, Moore, still a captain..." or something similar (suggestion only).
 * Done - Changed to "During that conflict, Moore was captain of a company he led to South Carolina"
 * "...whose port had been closed by the Boston Port Act to all commerce in 1774..." → "...whose port had been closed to all commerce in 1774by the Boston Port Act."
 * Done!
 * "... Moore led his command upriver along the south bank of the Cape Fear...", perhaps "... Moore led his command upriver along the south bank of Cape Fear..."
 * Not Done - See my reasoning for keeping it the same, supra.
 * "Moore would be one of only five North Carolinians to achieve the rank of brigadier general or higher in the Continental Army." Would be or was? "Was" seems more correct to me.
 * Done!
 * "... in the main channel of the Cape Fear south of the city..." do you mean "... in the main channel of the Cape Fear River south of the city..."?
 * Done - this does make it clearer. Sometimes using the common shorthand goes a little too far.
 * "...which order was confirmed by the Continental Congress on November 16...", consider more simply "...which was confirmed by the Continental Congress on November 16..."
 * Done!
 * Sorry it's taken me so long to address these! My responses are above, indented under your comments.  Cdtew  (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, the comments above were from User:Anotherclown.


 * Technical review as fol:
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Images all have Alt Text (no action required).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Images all seem PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action required).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
 * Added my support now (and a signature!). Anotherclown (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.