Wikipedia

Talk:91st Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment/GA1

< Talk:91st Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 47thPennVols in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago65 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 10:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


G'day, I will take a look at this article's nomination for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@AustralianRupert: My apologies for the delay in responding. Per my responses on my user talk page re: your messages regarding your launch of the GA review for this article, I've been off of Wikipedia and the computer in general, and am just now only seeing your posts - due to it being Thanksgiving vacation week for many of us in the U.S. right now, as well as to my recovery from a nasty accident. (Please see my talk page for details.) I'm so pleased that you've volunteered to take on this review, appreciate the wealth of suggestions you've provided below, and am looking forward to working with you on this. I'm also relieved, however, that you've put the GA review on hold (per your messages on my talk page) because I'm still not fully recovered from my accident. As a result, I'm requesting that I be given a slightly longer hold time (to mid-December) to allow for my recovery, as well as to complete the items you've recommended be adjusted. (Again, I would not normally ask this, but due to the advice from my doctor, I really need to stay off the computer until the healing process is further along.) I hope this is okay, and appreciate your understanding and patience. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@47thPennVols: G'day, 47th, no worries. I have to travel interstate at the end of next week (leaving 30 Nov) and will possibly be offline until 07 Dec, so it works well for me to leave this open until mid-Dec. I'm sorry to hear about your accident and hope that your recovery is smooth. All the best for Thanksgiving and beyond. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
G'day, I am back now, at least for a week or so. Will be on the road from 17 Dec to 31 Dec, but will most likely have internet in some form during that period. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply


General comments: G'day, 47thPennVols, nice work on this article so far. I have a few general comments/observations, before looking at the main aspects of the GA criteria: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • there are no dup or dab links, and all the external links work (no action required)
  • in the lead, there should be some mention of when the unit disbanded and that it consisted a X number of companies
  • were the unit's personnel volunteers or conscripts, or a mixture? If volunteers, what were their terms of enlistment (i.e. 3 years -- this is mentioned later in the article, but probably should be mentioned close to the start of the History section)
  • Done (see first paragraphs of lede and History section) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, that looks good. I tweaked the lead slightly to avoid repetition of the word "additional". AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • mention of the Zouave uniforms should be added to the body of the article
  • Done (added new section for "Battle flags, uniforms and other equipment"; populated with content) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • same as above for the presentation of the state colour
  • Done (added new section for "Battle flags, uniforms and other equipment"; populated with content; added new details re: Second State Color) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • the listing of the individual company commanders is probably excessive detail, IMO, although it would be relevant to mention the first members to hold the positions of colonel and lieutenant colonel, IMO. While I feel the company commanders should be removed, I would make it clear that the regiment consisted of a certain number of companies
  • @AustralianRupert: I’ve reworked the wording in this section. Rather than eliminating the listing of individual company commanders entirely, I’ve streamlined this section. I opted for this compromise solution because I believe it’s important show that several of these captains were later promoted into key positions with the regiment’s central command—which illustrates that this particular regiment rewarded its men by advancing them up the ladder of leadership to key positions within its central command structure. (Not every Pennsylvania volunteer regiment did this.) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • the list of companies goes from A to K, but misses out J -- was there a reason for this?
  • @AustralianRupert: There was no company J in the 91st PA (or in Pennsylvania's other volunteer infantry regiments - just one of the many quirks of Pennsylvania's volunteer Civil War-era military procedures). 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No worries, wasn't sure if it was a typo, or if there was some explanation. (i.e an administrative error, or some kind of tradition or superstition for instance). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • in the January through November 1862 section, I suggest combining the first and second paragraphs as the first is a single sentence
  • relieved the 88th Pennsylvania: wikilink the 88th here
  • according to the Alexandria Gazette: add italics for the Alexandria Gazette here
  • Relieved by the 94th New York... link the 94th here
  • Next engaged in duties... suggest combining this sentence with the next paragraph
  • part the Union's Maryland Campaign...: link Maryland Campaign here
  • crossed the Potomac River...: link Potomac River here
  • generals McClellan to Burnside...: add full names and wikilinks here
  • Crossing the Rappahanock River at...: link Rappahanock River here
  • post they held under ordered onto... --> "post they held until ordered onto"?
  • the 91st then lost an...: delete "then"
  • Burnside's Mud March for which... --> "Burnside's Mud March during which"?
  • build corduroy roads: link "corduroy road" here
  • following the resignation of Lt. Col. Wallace...: do we know why he resigned?
  • @AustralianRupert: Bates, in his History of Pennsylvania Volunteers, provided two different statements re: Wallace’s departure – one, a simple statement in his summary of the regiment’s general history, that Wallace resigned (but without further explanation as to why), and a second in his roster for field and staff officers that Wallace discharged on a surgeon’s certificate of disability on January 10, 1863 without further explanation as to the reasoning behind the surgeon’s decision (but which was most likely due to some sort of injury that he incurred during the Battle of Fredericksburg – an intense engagement which occurred in December 1862). I’ve now adjusted the wording to reflect the honorable discharge via surgeon’s certificate of disability. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • April 25 by the 155th Pennsylvania: link the 155th here
  • As they approached the CSA...: has "CSA" been formally introduced as an abbreviation in the article?
  • Done (have now introduced “CSA” as an abbreviation in last par. of section, “January through November 1862”) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • withdraw by their... --> "withdraw because of their..."?
  • Among the casualties incurred during this engagement were Capt. Theodore H. Parsons...: instead of naming individual casualties, it might be better to provide a numerical summary (unless the casualty was particularly notable, e.g. the CO for instance)
  • Done (removed that paragraph and its related citations) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Relieving the 32nd Massachusetts...: link the 32nd here
  • they noted that Pvt. James Ray (Co. E) had sustained a wound to the side of his body: is this notable enough to be mentioned here? While it sounds callous, Ray would have been one of many casualties, so I am unsure why he is being singled out here?
  • Done (revised sentence in order to preserve the reference to the regiment in The New York Times) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • granted veteran furloughs...: link furlough here
  • Done: rather than linking the specific word "furlough" here, however (since that particular Wikipedia page has very little to do with military furloughs), I linked the page "Leave (military)", but kept the term as "veteran furlough" in the actual 91st PA paragraph since that is the phrasing that was used by Union army regiments 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • with the enemy...: probably best to avoid "enemy" as a term here, lest it be considered a point of view
  • Corrected (replaced "enemy" throughout with "CSA troops" or "CSA", the acronym for the Confederate States Army) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • there are several other uses of the word, which might be reconsidered as appropriate
  • Corrected (replaced "enemy" throughout with "CSA troops" or "CSA", the acronym for the Confederate States Army) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • they crossed the James River...: link James River here
  • For the main battles mentioned in the article, I think it would be a good idea to either work a link into the text, or add a {{main}} link in the relevant section
  • Done (added wikilinks to individual battles; also added individual battles and other campaigns to Infobox with wikilinks) 47thPennVols (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • suggest combining the second and third paragraphs of the 1865 section
  • Done. Appreciated this suggestion, but have decided not to implement. The duties outlined in par. 2 were peacekeeping in nature, and were distinct from the Grand Review of the Armies described in par. 3 (a major event designed to show off the federal government's powers following the surrender of the Confederate Army). As such, both items deserve their own paragraphs. (I clarified the Review's importance by adding new content to par. 3, and creating a separate par. for the date re: the regiment's muster out.) 47thPennVols (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • in the 1864 or 1865 campaign sections, it might help to add a map if there was a suitable one available
  • Done (Overland-Petersburg-Appomattox map attached; thank you for the suggestion)
  • in the Casualties section, the list of names is probably excessive and should be removed, IMO
  • Done (list of names removed, content tweaked slightly to improve flow and add data re: men who were declared MIA) 47thPennVols (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • in the References, "91st Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers," PA-Roots." is used multiple times and probably should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS
  • @AustralianRupert: Appreciated this suggestion (and the one below), but have decided not to implement the reference format changes at this juncture since Wikipedia's requirements for Good Article designation do not require that the reference format be changed, and in order to help speed the GA review process along. (I'm also still trying to minimize my typing due to the pain and numbness in my hand, wrist and arm resulting from the accident that I mentioned earlier, and would appreciate not having to make these particular edits since the format I've used is acceptable under Wikipedia GA guidelines.) 47thPennVols (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • same as above for those where the same page number is cited (for instance Bates, p. 186; Bates p. 190; Bates, p. 191 etc)
  • Opting not to implement this suggestion (please see explanation in the bulleted item directly above) 47thPennVols (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No worries, that's fair enough. I would certainly recommend implementing this before taking the article to WP:MHACR or WP:FAC if you decide to go that way. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • in the External resources, Bates should be removed as it is specifically cited
  • Done
  • "File:Pennsylvania State Flag 1863 pubdomain.jpg": while you may have taken the photo, I think it actually needs a licence for the underlying work, which is the coat of arms itself
  • No change needed. This coat of arms, a close up of the coat of arms on a flag that was actually carried into battle by a Pennsylvania volunteer regiment during the American Civil War's third year (1863), does not need an additional license because the underlying artwork was created for the state during the late 1700s (well before the 1923 date required by U.S. copyright and Wikipedia for classification as public domain). According to a history of this coat of arms researched and written by county government personnel in Greene County, Pennsylvania, "In 1778, Caleb Lownes of Philadelphia prepared a coat of arms. Heraldic in design, it consisted of: a shield, which displayed the emblems of the State Seal - the ship, plough, and sheaves of wheat; an eagle for the crest; two black horses as supporters; and the motto 'Virtue, Liberty and Independence'.... Numerous modifications were made ... between 1778 and 1873, chiefly in the position and color of the supporting horses. In 1874, the legislature noted these variations ... and appointed a commission to establish an official coat of arms for the Commonwealth. In 1875, the commission reported that it had adopted, almost unchanged, the coat of arms originally designed by Caleb Lownes 96 years earlier." (Additional trustworthy sources also support these dates.) 47thPennVols (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • The addition of that information to the image description page is good, but in the circumstances (i.e it is an official battle flag issued to a regiment) wouldn't {{PD-USGov}} be appropriate for the underlying design of the coat of arms? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • "File:Battle of Fredericksburg, Dec 13, 1862.png": probably should have the US-PD-1923 tag also
  • "File:Col. Joseph Synex with 91st Pennsylvania Infantrymen, Little Round Top, Gettysburg, c. 1889.jpg": while you may have scanned this, it should not be labeled "own work" and you would most likely not be the copyright holder. The source field on the Commons description page should be updated to list where you got it from, and the licence should be updated. {{PD-US-1923}} is most likely the correct tag, so long as it was published before 1923
  • Done (replaced existing tag with the tag you've suggested)
  • suggest moving the Gallery up above the end sections (i.e. above the See also section)
  • Done (thanks for this section; makes the page flow better) 47thPennVols (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Earwig tool reports copyright violation to be unlikely: [1] (no action required)
  • All changes/responses above have addressed my points above. I hope that your recovery continues to go well. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks so much for your guidance, support, and well wishes. Wishing you all the best in the coming New Year! 47thPennVols (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

1. Well written:  Y

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:  Y

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be

challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and
d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:  Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.  Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute  Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:  Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:91st_Pennsylvania_Infantry_Regiment/GA1&oldid=872949412"