Talk:Joint Expedition Against Franklin

Work

I am working on this article. It will not be a stub when i am done! Thank you for the hard work tagging the articles. Chris Kreider 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! You're doing a great job so far =D - SpLoT / ^(talk) 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to submit a request to Did you know? for your article to be featured on the front page when you're done. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 17:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For help in referencing, you can use the {{cite web}} template. Also see WP:CITE for more information about in-line referencing. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see there are still some documents and reports which are not in the correct format. Try using other {{cite}} templates from WP:CITET. As a last alternative, you can use http://citationmachine.net/ to reference. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Article borrows from other sources

Not only is this article a stub, it borrows from Hamersheim's History anthology without ANY credit given and uses templates copied from other more credible wiki pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup of Asclepius (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

could you explain further: what chapters and pages of exactly which book? It does not appear a stub in the least, either. DGG (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article certainly doesn't meet the criteria of a stub.

I can't speak for the previous version of the article with regards to sourcing and/or accuracy. After speaking with Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) with regards to the sourcing originally used to build the article (see here), I scoured it and others before ensuring everything in the article was duly cited to a source I included in the article as you see it now. I'm not familiar with "Hamersheim's History anthology" (nor, apparently, is Google [1]), but if you could provide more information about it, I'd be happy to vet its reliability for inclusion in the article. Cheers. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not a stub. I can assure you everything I added can from an appropriate citation. I would not be theleast bit surpised to find out that the reference you are mentioning cited the references I used. It could appear as though the information was taken from the book you mentioned when in fact that book referenced it from somewhere else. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the contribs on the editor who started this thread, I may have to assume bad faith and assume that they are trolling (seeing that they tagged this article as a-1 speedy). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joint Expedition Against Franklin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be slightly longer. It should be about two solid paragraphs, each about the length (perhaps slightly shorter) than a paragraph that would be made out of combining the three current paragraphs. The lead should be a good summary of the entire article, without include new information.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • This article depends very heavily on one source (the GPO document by Long, et al), and also heavily on sources from the North. Are there no sources written from the South's POV, and no other sources in general? Information on the actual reaction of the South would be nice if you can find it - everything currently in the article is what the North thinks happened, nothing about the perspective of the Southern troops.

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:

   • See above regarding the North v. South POV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   • This article is somewhat overwhelmed with photographs. At least one of the images of ships should probably be removed, and perhaps more. The extra photos are creating a lot of white space in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor MOS and image issues, but the main thing is the referencing and heavy dependence upon one source. I will be watchlisting this page - please leave your responses/questions on this page. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, while I did a lot of work on this article somewhat recently, it was Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) who both started it and provided its sources. I extensively expounded what he started, but the tools are originally his and I would ask you wait on passing judgment until he has weighed in here (I've notified him). I am not well-versed in military history at all, much less United States-specific nor the Civil War in particular, and as such do not have the wherewithal to determine whether further sourcing is available at all.

That being said, I would like to inquire about your mention of "a lot of white space in the article." The last image (of the Whitehead) does progress into the "Outcome" section, but it doesn't seem to be creating any undue formatting problems therein. Is it perchance extending into the "References" section for you (based on your browser's resolution) and causing problems there? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I also do not see any white space issues and feel that the images add a lot to an article that might otherwise be bland to a casual pbserver (one of my intentions is to make articles that may be boring to a non interested party a little more interesting by providing photos when possible (and we are actually pretty lucky that these photos exist). I will do a little more reference searching and make sure it is neutral. Thanks for the feedback. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the intro paragraph, do you think it looks better? I am looking for sources with a better POV from the south but I am skeptical that I will find them. I will give it another few days of searching then call it off. Thanks again for your review. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead does look better, thank you. As for the pictures, it appears to be the size of my main computer screen that was making the white space show, as it does not appear on other computers that I use. As for the sources and POV from the south, if this article is to be broad in coverage as the GA criteria requires, I feel that it needs at least basic information from the South. This article does not even tell us who their commanders were, and the Southern death toll is simply an estimate from the general in charge of the northern forces. These are basic facts that should be included in the article, but currently are not. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I have through this weekend to work on this? I've found a source with Confederate-perspective information, but I'm a bit tasked with school for the next few days. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. As long as the article is being actively worked on, I have no problem with extending the hold period. Just let me know when you feel you've completed the work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thor, can you pass the reference on to me (is it digital?) I will take a look and see what I can get out of it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Raiford, Neil Hunter (2003). "First Taste of Fire: Skirmishes Along the Blackwater". The 4th North Carolina Cavalry in the Civil War: A History and Roster (Google Book Search). Jefferson, North Carolina, USA: McFarland & Company. pp. 13–20. ISBN 9780786414680. Retrieved 2009-09-14. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

  So sorry I didn't get to it, I'm still recovering from a virus I was dealing with all weekend, so I'm glad to hand it off if you don't mind making the best of it. I'll still help out with working on it, but now I have my virus and schoolwork to contend with for the next few days, and don't know how much concerted Wikiing I'll be doing. Thanks for the offer! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

← I am knee deep in school work too. maybye we should pull this out of GA consideration until I have time to expand it?Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I say if we don't get to it this weekend, that would be fair. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still the weekend, right? Damnable insomnia. I've expanded the article with the source I found above. I would very much appreciate though if you (or anybody) could copyedit this expansion and the prose that went into it, especially given my sleeplessness. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my page. I'm going to apologize in advance - a nasty illness knocked me off my feet a couple of days ago, and I can still only stand to be upright and focused on a computer screen for small increments of time. It will probably be the weekend before I have the concentration abilities to begin prose checking (and I almost always do a little copyediting on my way). Again, I sincerely apologize, especially for the delay after your hard work. Dana boomer (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No apologies necessary! I appreciate your willingness to stand with us as we work on improving the article. Take your time and don't push yourself for something like this, I hope you're well again soon! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken another look through the article, made a couple of minor prose changes, and now declare the article of GA status. The addition of the information on the Confederate movements much improves the broadness of the article. One minor comment (which doesn't affect the GA status) is that there are a lot of red links in the article. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, any links which lead to subjects that are probably not notable enough to have their own article in the future should probably be removed. Other than that, the article looks good! Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(Hope you're feeling better!) Thanks! I'm uncertain as to the merits of individual Civil War-era military units warranting their own articles, but I know red links don't hurt! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joint Expedition against Franklin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223063700/http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/civwarmz.html to http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/civwarmz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)