Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [1].

---

68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment/archive1

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after passing a GA review, I believe it meets the qualifications. Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm assuming from the different formatting of Fritsch and Kummer that in the latter both Kummer and Fox are editors; if that's the case, why not include both in shortened citations?
• Location for Kummer?
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or spelled out. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Locations and state should be fixed now. As to the editors: Fritsch wrote a monograph that Butts edited. Kummer wrote an essay on the 68th N.Y. that was included in a larger work about all the New York units at Gettysburg, which Fox edited. I've changed the cite format on Kummer to better reflect that. I also added the second editor, Daniel Sickles, whom I had inadvertently left off. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, some wikilinks added. GermanJoe (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment that served ...": Not your fault, you (and others) are following that awful advice in WP:LEAD ... but I just can't see it. "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment served ..." - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Made up mostly of German immigrants, it was also known as ...": Just an idea, this would be a little tighter: "Mostly German immigrants, they were also known as ..."
• "Cameron Rifles,": See WP:LQ
• "1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting.": had finished
• "Washington, D.C..": oops
• "re-organized": hyphen in BritEng, no hyphen in AmEng
• "They moved to Hunter's Chapel, Virginia, and camped there for the remainder of the winter. While there, Betge came into conflict ...": No big deal, but someone's probably going to complain it's not tight enough ... how about this? "They camped for the remainder of the winter in Hunter's Chapel, Virginia. Betge came into conflict ..."
• That covers the first section, and I probably won't have any trouble covering the copyediting in my self-allotted two hours ... but run through the rest looking for similar problems before I get started, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I do like my language to be concise. I've gone over the rest of the article with that in mind, but if you see any other problems, let me know. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for your fixes. I get that there's an argument the other way, but I still don't like "In all, 1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting." If you don't like "had finished", it can be reworded.
• "Colonel Betge protested against what he considered the mistreatment his regiment": something's missing.
• "Frémont's force of 15,000 combined with the 10,000-man division of Brig. Gen. James Shields to converge on Jackson south of Massanutten Mountain.": most readers are going to read "combined with" as "along with", then they'll have to back up when they realize the sentence doesn't seem to have a verb.
• "they did lose two men killed": a little informal. "two men were killed" works I think.
• "April 2, 1863": WP:Checklist#second comma needed. Search for 1863 to catch the others.
• "the 68th crossed the Potomac and arrived in Virginia on July 16 and took up guard duty": The two ands don't work.
• "it and the rest of the XI Corps was": were; compound subject.
• "As the 68th had no colonel since von Bourry was cashiered": one of the verb tenses is wrong ... it could be either one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed all of these. I wasn't against the "had finished" language, I just missed it last time around. Should be good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• A little more: I removed "came into conflict with some of the other officers and" because it looks like what follows defines the conflict, but if there was some other conflict, perhaps it should be described. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you have it right. That language is fine with me. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• After comments in other FACs, I'm putting more work into editing to match the style I think the delegates are looking for. Please check carefully, since I'm making a few guesses. I guessed "loyal" was a word in the source and put it in quote marks ... if they didn't say "loyal", what did they say, so I can paraphrase? - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Your edits are fine, but I don't think there's only one style that is acceptable at FAC. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed ... but the style work necessary to get articles through FAC is diverging from the work necessary to get them through A-class ... and I've come around to thinking that that's actually a good thing. More on this later today at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It's difficult to strike a balance between precision and clarity on the one hand and engaging, interesting prose on the other. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Quite. I'm actually going to put off that post til the weekly FAC update on Saturday night. The point I want to make is that too much fussiness at A-class is a bad thing, but the standards are pretty high these days at FAC ... particularly for Milhist articles that are a bit technical or involved. I'm putting in more work at FAC than I used to, and I don't mind, but it's going to be impossible not to come across as fussy. Feel free to revert or complain, we'll work it out. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The regiment spent the first month on similar duty to the one it had left: guarding the railroads leading to Chattanooga.": Not sure I follow, how was it similar, or not? - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I just meant that after Gettysburg they guarded railroads in Virginia, then moved to Tennessee and guarded railroads there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I went with: "The regiment spent the first month guarding railroads again, this time around Chattanooga." Slight change in meaning ... that won't be right if they weren't actually around Chattanooga. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I changed it to "west of", because "around" might suggest all around, while the areas to the east and south were still held by rebels. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• There are a couple more "musters", which Kirk objected to.
• Otherwise, done. Still supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:68thNY_Gettysburg.png: since this is 3D, you need either copyright info for both the image and the monument, or a freedom of panorama tag.
  • The pic is from 1900. The monument has been there at least that long. I'm not sure what you want me to add -- freedom of panomara doesn't apply in the U.S., according to that link. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • My mistake, struck. Just explicitly state that the licensing tag applies to both the artwork and the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I added that detail with a citation. The monument was dedicated in 1888. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• File:Acw_bs_7a.png: on what source(s) was this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The portal picture? I have no idea. I can remove it if it's a problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • According to the page's description, the creator made it himself and releases it to the PD. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, but it appears to be derived from pre-existing flags, which need to be sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • The user who created it hasn't edited in eighteen months, so I doubt we'll get any clarification from him/her. I'll just comment it out for now, if that's OK. I don't think I've ever disagreed with your image assessments before, but I think this one is a little too cautious. There's nothing to suggest that the creator of the image did anything but draw a combination of two well-known images. That said, I'll be glad to take it out for the good of the article -- I don't think it's that important and the portal is linked on the talk page already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I left a note on the image's talk page. Until a satisfactory response, I'm happy to leave it commented out. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks clear 3/12 sources; 5/79 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I was concerned about your reliance on Fritsch, as it is a primary source. However, I note two things: 1) the text was edited prior to publication, not a great but better than nil; 2) Every thing solely cited to Fritsch is a matter of simple appointment or manoeuvre, no analytical content is cited to Fritsch, and the documentary analysis required to produce these statements would be trivial synthesis. (Grind teeth, accept use).
  • NYT at fn5;6 clear; Coffey fn4, 70, 76 clear.
  • From the style of summarisation of NYT and Coffey I have no doubts that this is clear of plagiarism and that the citations correctly support the sources.

Comments: This article looks very good and I would be glad to give you my support. However, there is something that you should improve before I do that. The lead has a single paragraph. Couldn't you enlarge it to at least three paragraphs? It's not that hard. All it would take is to copy and paste (practically) the most important facts. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a lot more detail. I think it should adequately summarize the article now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is a wonderful article and I'm glad to support its promotion to FA. Dank did all the hard work of pointing and correcting the minor issues and I support all his improvements. Coemgenus, it must have been quite difficult to write it all by yourself. This is one fine work. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! Finding the sources was the hardest part. Once I tracked them down, writing the thing wasn't too bad. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• I second Lecen's comment - good work.
• I dislike this phrasing The 68th was mustered out of federal service in November 1865. - its pretty close to the 19th century source and I think you could reword these in simple(r) English.
  • Changed to "disbanded". --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Similarly, ...sent them reeling....went their separate ways...reeling off the ridge...depressed by their defeat - Dank might have missed these; you should strive to use more neutral language.
• Link picket duty or describe it (preferrable). Kirk (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kirk, and I agree with your particulars (as follows), but I want to make sure we're clear: FAC reviewers don't want paragraphs and paragraphs of "A moved here and did this, and then B moved there and did that", with never a hint of commentary or emotion. What we're trying to avoid are trite and confusing phrases and emotional language that is unexplained, unnecessary, or out of proportion to what's going on. So:
  • "sent them reeling. Sigel's forces held firm": I misunderstood this the first time ... now it feels like it doesn't paint a clear picture ... they were reeling, then they held firm, then they fell back.
  • "disbanded and went their separate ways": Yeah, good call, there's not much in "went their separate ways" that isn't covered by "disbanded".
  • "reeling off the ridge": Not sure ... what was happening, exactly?
  • "depressed" isn't always a "non-neutral" word, but there are conditions. It's not clear to me what made them depressed (there are several options ... or it could have just been the defeat, but the readers don't need help figuring out that that was depressing). I've just added a paragraph to WT:Checklist#A_little_more_on the_two_new_points that I hope covers the issue. (You'd think with everything that's been written about expository writing, I could find something somewhere that covers this, but I don't remember seeing it in any of my guides.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • On that last point, I lumped that one together with the others and its a separate issue. I read the source on google books and I think you are aiming for "demoralized" to describe the mental state of the men in the 68th. Keller does use that word on the page, but I think its the best adjective to use here. I would also mention the high casualties in this section. Kirk (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed, there's no good synonym for "demoralized". - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hmm Traveling 1,800 miles (2,900 km) by rail, the 68th arrived in Tennessee on September 30 Its what the source says, but 1,800 miles by rail is St. Louis to Los Angeles; Warrenton to Chattanooga is about 500; they must have taken an indirect route but my best guess is around 1,000 miles unless they did some major backtracking - I'd find another source for this sentence. Kirk (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I'll try to tend to these today. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, these all should be in order now, except for the last. I think the 1800 figure is correct -- the point of including it in the source, I think, was to demonstrate how round-about the route was, due to the dislocations of war, torn up tracks, etc. Fritsch also says the journey took seven days, which also suggests an indirect route. I'll look in the other sources, but I don't recall seeing anything to the contrary. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Without a description of the route (which would be interesting) I would use 7 days instead of 1800 miles. Kirk (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I just found another source that says it was 1,200 miles. Until I can resolve the ambiguity, I've changed it to "for seven days". --Coemgenus (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support looks good, thanks! Kirk (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very good article, deserves to be a FA, it would be great if we had more articles like this one, nice pictures, good sources and well organized. The regiments from New York are very interesting, I was not familiar with this specific regiment, I knew about the Irish regiments and the Garibaldi Guard. I learned a lot, thanks. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.