Talk:Charles Mattocks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

will start in the next coule of days. auntieruth (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Serious issues with section on biography--Martha married at the age of 10? I think you mean when Charles was 10, his mother remarried....but it's not clear. This needs to be rewritten
• missing four votes is not almost unanimous.
• wasn't it Chamberlain who was promoted from colonel of 17th Maine ? you should mention this. Also that the 17th Maine was comprised of a lot of men from Bowdoin, including Chamberlain.
• generally, the writing needs some work and the mixture of citations, explanatory notes using a letter, and citation styles was confusing. I'll not fuss at it over Good Article, but if you take this further, you will get some flak. Best to do a good copy edit; I'll put this on hold until then. auntieruth (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll look to do a full over copy edit in the next few days. User:Vermont will have to fix some other issues, as some of it is based on sources I don't have access to. As to the mixed numbered references and lettered footnotes, I use those on almost everything I write on, late 19th Century especially, and didn't get no guff about it at FA. Although admittedly it isn't a supremely popular style, it's still permitted as much as the overall waning Harvard citation style is. GMG^talk 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to fix issues within the article. Also, Chaimberlain was not in the 17th Maine. He commanded the 20th Maine. I mentioned that 3 other people from Bowdoin joined the 17th, although I'm not sure who. Vermont (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, right re Chamberlain. I was confused. No problem on the style, I just found it confusing. let me know when copy edit is done, and I'll come back. auntieruth (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

btw, love the comment about yards of red tape~ auntieruth (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

From writings about him (and reading his journal), his men respected but hated him, and superior officers adored him. He also saw the army as a sort of organized contest; writing a lot in his journal about what officer will get what position after the one previously holding it died. Thus, it produced quite a few humorous comments about him, one of which we just had to include. Vermont (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)