Talk:Richard Montgomery

Latest comment: 5 months ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleRichard Montgomery was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 21, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 25, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 20, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article

stuff to add edit

Wow there is a lot to be added to this page, I just finished reading a book on Montgomery entitled, "General Richard Montgomery and the American Revolution" written by my history professor Hal T. Shelton. I must say it has every little detail you would ever want on the general and his contribution to the American Revolution. I don't have much time to actually add info right now, but I recommend anyone interested go out and buy the book and perhaps add some much needed info to this article. Sky 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

An article in last saturday's irish times stated that it had been discovered that Montgomery had in face been born on the Abbeyville Estate, in Kinsealy, (near but not in Swords) Co. Dublin. The issue of interest was that this home was the marital home of Taoiseach Charles Haughey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.17.108 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Spotlight Todo edit

  • Put {{fact}} tags where needed
  • Clean up legacy section, reword, completely reorganize
  • Needs tons of expansion in every section of the article
  • Lead is too short, needs expansion
  • More cites
  • Fix red links

Red4tribe (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also we need to figure out the best idea for the lists. We could shorten it out, and transform it into a paragraph style maybe? Synergy 09:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The place of birth needs to be consistent. The info box only says county dublin, but the article says swords county dublin. Any reason why? Synergy 04:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
That is fixed.-Red4tribe (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone should go to this link and add some info in from there so there is more than 1 source.-Red4tribe (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Date inconsistency? edit

In copyediting, I note that there is a date inconsistency in the approach to Fort St. John. One paragraph has Schuyler arriving Sep 4, the next has action on Sep 6, the next has action on Sep 4 again. Magic♪piano 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I checked the source, it is supposed to be the 10th not the 4th. Either some vandalisim was overlooked or there wasa typo.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

St. Johns and Montreal edit

I have some comment on the section dealing with St. Johns, Chambly, and Montreal. In my opinion, this part is missing some things that ought to be elaborated a bit more.

  • James Livingston deserves more mention in the events around St. Johns (and possibly communications prior to the actual invasion), since he actually plays a somewhat important role with respect to the fall of Chambly, and is related to Montgomery's wife. (He also goes on to participate at Quebec City, leading the 1st Canadian Regiment.)
  • The approach to Montreal is very superficially described. Some forces go to Sorel rather than Montreal, to cut off Carleton's fleet; I believe this may have been Montgomery's idea.
  • Montgomery had to deal with setting up administration in Montreal before he moved on to Quebec City. This is not covered here at all. It gets involved in Quebec politics, which I think he felt a little out of his depth in.

These are all things I didn't cover well either when I worked on Invasion of Canada (1775); they should definitely have some space here. Magic♪piano 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've finished copyediting. In addition to the above comments, I add the recommendation that the descriptions of the revolutionary war "set pieces" be rounded out with sources that specifically describe those events in more detail; besides the above, the battle of quebec treats Arnold's attack a little too superficially. There is probably also space to include a post-mortem (literally) discussion of his behavior at Quebec -- whether the sort of leadership he exhibited in the attack was appropriate, typical, or expected of high-level commanders.
I've also added some details to the Quebec battle that need citation. Kieran, if you want, I can dig something up for them. Magic♪piano 17:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll get started. Yes, anything you can dig up that would be useful I will glady take a look at, thanks.-Kieran4 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Richard Montgomery edit

Richard Montgomery is in my family tree and i never understood why he is so famous, what did he do i mean i am not disrespecting him i just have no idea what he did for him to be that famous and remembered by so many people. I know that he dies at Quebec during the american revoultionary war, so if you can answer this it would be nice just message me at my email which is nick56x@live.com. So thank you if you answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick56x (talkcontribs) 01:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Burial edit

Wouldn't it make sense just to list his burial as Manhattan, New York? While originally he was in Quebec City, he has been re-interned. Where he was previously interned does not need to be in an infobox, especially when the current burial spot is beneath in smaller text. Sovietmessiah (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment edit

Richard Montgomery edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Sourcing issues across what both is and isn't inline cited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Inline citations are needed in the "Memorials" (first half), "Legacy" and "In popular culture" sections. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed the unsourced paragraphs added later on that really shouldn't have been in there to begin with. Was that the only issue? I mean that only took me 5 minutes to address not sure if it was worth sending to GAR. Wizardman 00:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's still some unreferenced passages throughout the article, which are marked with a citation needed. I took another look at the article and see that most inline citations are to the Shelton source, which is a high-quality source but might not represent the breadth of knowledge about him. Some other sources that could be used in the article are Biographi, a JSTOR article, another JSTOR article and possible sources in the Invasion of Quebec (1775) article (since Montgomery was heavily involved in that). @Wizardman: would you be willing to take a look and add citations or remove uncited passages as needed? Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay in responding. Reading this a bit further I actually have a couple extra concerns on top of what you noted, namely most of the sourcing being from just one book. While not a deal-breaker in and of itself, that combined with your concerns makes me think we're probably better delisting this one until it can be fine-tuned more (even if I'm able to add/remove the citations I think the issues still stand, unfortunately). Wizardman 02:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.