Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William F. Raynolds/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

William F. Raynolds edit

Nominator(s): MONGO 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raynolds was a man of many achievements. A West Point grad and member of the U.S. Topographical Engineers, he was a decorated U.S. Army Colonel upon retirement and temporarily breveted to General for meritorious service during the American Civil War....was the first to climb Pico de Orizaba, the tallest mountain in Mexico, and led the first U. S. Government sponsored expedition into the region that later became the world's first National Park; Yellowstone. Raynolds was a renowned civil engineer who oversaw the construction of many lighthouses... some of which are still in use and are on the National Register of Historic Places. This article is currently rated as a Good Article after being well reviewed by Nikkimaria and copyedited by Bishonen. Tell me what else I can do to get this article to Featured level. Thanks! MONGO 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "described by Raynolds as "a small band compared to their neighbors, but are famous warriors ..."": Rewrite that, please, so that it makes sense as a sentence.
    Adjusted this but may still alter it for flow MONGO 12:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A combination of failure to reach the fabled sights of the Yellowstone region as well as the outbreak of the war relegated the Raynold's Expedition to near obscurity, but his map was in high demand and was published in 1864.": I don't know what that means; people must have known that he went there if they knew about the map.
    Reworded that and eliminated some redundant wording. MONGO 16:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate your input, Dank. Many thanks. MONGO 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • In the expedition section, discussion of the Wind River and Bighorn River needs a bit of clairification so that the reader knows they are not different rivers, just different parts of the same river. (I know it still confuses me at times).--Mike Cline (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I wordsmithed something that works...feel free to check MONGO 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading east, the reunited expedition recrossed the Rocky Mountains and traveled via steamboat downstream to Omaha, Nebraska where the expedition members were disbanded in October 1860. Not accurate as once at Three Forks, the expedition was already on the Missouri river and East of the Rockies. Did they travel via the Yellowstone or Missouri east?? Where did they catch the boat--Fort Benton, Bighorn, Fort Union?? --Mike Cline (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjusted and added a source, albeit an ancient one from 1906 but likely accurate--MONGO 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural note @Mike Cline:; there has always been a technical issue at FAC where templates slow down the page load time and cause issues once the FAC is archived. Mike, if intead of the tq template, you could use the manual font color method that Casliber uses, for example at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Telescopium/archive1, it would help the transclusion problem that sometimes occurs in FAC archives. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: interesting article. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • are there any details that can be provided to flesh out the Early life section a little more? For instance, who were his parents? Do we know where he went to school, etc?
    Found further details on his ancestry but I confess it might be hard to adequately reference even though the details are neither surprising nor sensational enough to warrant much indignation due to mediocre referencing. In other words no claim to being descended from royalty or other famous persons is made. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a widow is mentioned, are there any details about her? When did they marry? What was her name? Did they have any children?
    As above, same detail enhancement but mediocre referencing and I won't dare use findagrave as a reference. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What you've added looks great and satisfies my request for more information, but now it appears unreferenced. For instance there are two unreferenced senteces in the Early life section: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died. William and Mary had no offspring." And another later, "William and his wife Mary, who died in 1898, were interred together in West Lawn Cemetery in Canton, Ohio." If you can't find a reliable source for these details, I think it would be best not to include it. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed his wife's name since it cannot be referenced. The information I have read states he was married "early in life" which I altered to "at a young age", that his wife outlived him and that they had no children. I've adjusted the various passages in the article to reflect this information and added a citation to reflect his place of burial which that source says is "Westlawn Cemetery", but the modern spelling is "West Lawn Cemetery" which is wikilinked.--MONGO 06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:William F. Raynolds.jpg": this might look more visually appealing if it were rotated to face into the article. Is this possible, at all? (note, this is not required by policy, just a suggestion)
    I have seen that as a MOS suggestion before and its a good one...maybe I can download then reupload a reversed image and see what it looks like. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  • watch capitalisation "Brevet Second Lieutenant" probably should be "brevet second lieutenant" (same for "Brevet Brigadier General") per MOS:MILTERMS;
    Done
  • year range format, constructions such as "1859–1860" should be "1859–60" per WP:DATERANGE (except birth-death parentheticals);
    Done
  • not sure about the comma here: "named Raynolds Pass, (44°42′40″N 111°28′11″W)"...I don't think commas are necessary before brackets;
    Done
  • not sure about the comma here: "Raynolds stated that the Crow were a, "small band...";
    Done
  • this seems a bit repetitious: "Raynold's immediate participation in the American Civil War..." followed closely by "With the outbreak of the American Civil War almost immediately after the conclusion of the expedition..."
    Wordsmithed this so the redundancy is eliminated I hope! Good point. MONGO 17:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "May, 1848" --> "May 1848" per WP:DATESNO;
    Done
  • same as above for "July, 1861". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
    Thank you and I will attend to your wise points in the next few days. MONGO 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about these parameters in the cite book template: "author1=Raynolds|authorlink1=William" in Reference 20. Currently the link points to a dab page for "William", which doesn't seem right. Perhaps "authorlink" isn't the correct paramater to use?
    I simply removed the authorlink issue...its an edited version and condensed portion from Raynolds's diaries and trip report, so I just mentioned the editors.--MONGO 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a slight tweak to this sentence: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." There is probably no need to use the subject's full name again, particularly given that most sentences in the paragraph already begin with his name. Secondly, I'd tweak the punctuation. For instance, I suggest something like this: "Raynolds married Mary Hanchett (January 24, 1822 – January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. Your suggestion looks better anyway.--MONGO 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added my support as all of my concerns have been dealt with. Good luck with the rest of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truly appreciate you taking time out of your day, reviewing the article and offering wise suggestions. Much appreciated!--MONGO 04:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is inconsistent use of the possessive apostrophe for Raynolds. It appears as Raynolds's (acceptable) and Raynold's (not correct), I couldn't find a Raynolds' which would also be acceptable. Just need a correct and consistent use. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have this taken care of now. MONGO 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A map of the expedition from the Raynolds reports might liven this up. I've uploaded 4 different maps that came out of the expedition for you to chose from if you decide to use them. Raynolds Expedition --Mike Cline (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds Mike and much appreciated. Added one map to the article and a link to the Commons category as well. MONGO 17:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Great_Falls_of_the_Missouri_by_J._D._Hutton.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done

Support --Mike Cline (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review and suggestions.--MONGO 04:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties on this occasion:

  • Completed my habitual copyedit, pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or you disagree with the new wording.
  • I think most of the queries I had on points of detail have been raised and resolved above. In light of that, I think structure and level of detail are fine.
  • I haven't done a source review but always happy to go with Nikki's image checks.
  • One thing, is the estimate of his estate in today's money?

Other than that I think we're looking pretty good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ian....thank you. The printed source for the 50-100k amount is dated at 1895, so I assume that was the worth then. Would it be better to clarify that and let the reader compute the difference or do as I have done and made the calculations? Depending on the source that's 1.3-2.7 million which I rounded out some. Do we have a desired format for these sorts of things and or sources that do a reliable conversion?--MONGO 16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi MONGO, sorry for not returning sooner... Looks like there is Template:Inflation for this sort of calculation, maybe best to use that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got it but the template, no matter how I messed with it would not seem to permit a to or and parameter so I added two templates. Hope that looks better.--MONGO 01:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine to me. I expect I'll be ready to support this following a clean source review. BTW, saw your edit summary when adding the template -- I'd found it by looking at the section on calculations in MOS, so I figure it's all compliant (that's why I suggested it). ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for all the help. I just saw that boilerplate at the top of that page and the stuff about OR violation so I was like, wow. But I know you know what you are doing. I wish it had a parameter that allowed ranges such as the ones I routinely use for measurements of distance, etc. I might ask and see if a template savvy editor could implement that as I am no expert on such matters.--MONGO 01:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Anyway, I think this still needs a source review (you could ask at the top of WT:FAC) so if that comes back clean I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in any hurry but I suppose if this is still needing a ref check after the first of the year I will post a request.--MONGO 14:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the source review has been conducted and issues dealt with, and I've tweaked a little the prose changes since I last read the article, I'm ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ian...it's good to see so many take time out of their day to contribute their thoughts and make edits to this article.--MONGO 14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose provisionally after a partial source review. I am finding issues with almost every citation, and they need to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

  • Fn 1, there seems to be some missing information regarding the volume. An ASIN is also available (B005644AE2) which would help readers locate the resource. Why are title caps not used?
    I believe this is now corrected.
  • Fn 2, Perrin is an editor, not an author.
    Done.
  • Fn 4, need more info on this site. From where did you obtain the publication date (the page has a "last updated" date of October 5, 2013)? Information is available on the page about the author (Bill Thayer). Who is he, and why is his personal page a reliable source? Etc.
    Removed and replaced with existing source
  • Fn 5, the publication date I found of the ebook publication is 2012. Please verify.
    Now corrected.
  • Fn 6, this is a journal and your citation does not match the journal title I found in Worldcat, and it's missing the publisher. Where did the publication date of June 10, 1895 come from?
    Is now Fn 4 and has been adjusted.
  • Fn 9, why is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?
    It is not reliable so I removed it.
  • Fn 11, this is a recreation/guide book for climbers, not a history book. The author does not cite sources. I would consider this a low-quality source for the information you're citing.
    As discussed below, while not per se a history book, the author Leigh N. Ortenburger was a dedicated mountaineer whose book in question is considered the bible for climbing routes in the Teton Range of Wyoming and likely a reliable authority on the detail referenced.
  • Fn 12, same comment really. It's OK for basic mountaineering information, but not history.
    I was beat to the punch by another with a much better source, although you need JSTOR to access it.
  • Fn 13, this is a reprint of text from the journal The Military Engineer (cited at the bottom of the page). You should be citing in the style described in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Actually that's probably true of fn 7 as well.
  • Fn 14–17, same comment. You're citing amateur web sites which are citing (hopefully) reliable sources about Raynolds. How do you know those sources are being used accurately?

I stopped here. Please go through all the sources and double-check that you are including accurate information (publication dates, publishers, etc.) and that you are properly citing the original works using the "cited in" format for these hobbyist web sites. --Laser brain (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will need a week or two to respond to this as real life is currently taking precedence.--MONGO 04:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laser brain:...for footnotes 11 and 12 is it a problem with the publisher? Why would this information have to be from "history" books? These sources are about mountaineering and the matter they reference is a mountaineering event.--MONGO 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, I'm thinking that the authors of these books tend to be very knowledgeable about the technical matters they are writing about, but we don't know how well they research and fact-check the other things they write about. For example, I have several books about mountaineering where I live. The authors each repeat a common historical misconception about a Civil War battle that occurred here and is part of local folklore—but they are not historians so they don't know any better and they're just trying to make the books interesting for customers. I'd much rather have a proper historical and fact-checked source for things like that. --Laser brain (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those authors are not making any sensational claims and the storyline is not very fantastic really. Frankly, in the case of these two sources you mention I believe you're being overly demanding. Sensational claims need sensational sources, though I would already state that in the case of FN 12 that author is a sensational source. I'll attempt to handle some of the other issues you think need addressing with the sources over the next week or two.--MONGO 12:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm not entrenched or anything, just giving some thoughts. I look forward to seeing the upcoming progress. I don't think it's far off. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need to open a jstor account and after that I should have a better reference than the one used in FN 11. I'll get the rest of the refs fixed and do double even triple checking as soon as possible.--MONGO 16:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a heck of a time with FN 1. The information is from Appleton's, volume 34, page 595 but that asin you provided may be incorrect...any sugggestions? I made the updates mentioned but something is still amiss.--MONGO 00:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't explain the disparity between the Google Books and Amazon info, so it's probably fine as-is. The ultimate point is that we provide enough information for someone to find the book, which we have. I can't look it up in Worldcat because all of OCLC's services are down for maintenance today. --Laser brain (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:...I think I have them all cleaned up. I tossed the peakbagger ref and the ones to lighthousefriends.com and similar. I also (with the help of BusterD and Mike Cline) was able to replace the reference from the author Secor with a far superior reference that provided the same details and more regarding the climb on Pico de Orizaba. A few refs may be not as well formatted as hoped and I am admittedly sometimes poor at using the best ref templates as could be used. The majority of my sources have url's attached to them for ease of cross-referencing. I've run citation bot several times to clean up my formatting and there are no dead links. Let me know what else you may think needs adjustments. Here is a diff providing a snapshot of the adjustments made.--MONGO 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's looking good now. I went ahead and checked through the rest of them. Changed to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you did the review...many of my refs were not up to FA standards. I am usually better at finding superior references so my initial take on your review was that you were nitpicking. A closer look however revealed that some were definitely inadequate. Thank you.--MONGO 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Brevet Brigadier General" was antedated to March 13, 1865 as many officer brevets were. His date of actually getting it approved was March 2, 1867 so he wouldn't have been called Brevit Brigadier General until after March 2, 1867. Since date meant seniority, a bunch of officers that received honorary brevits were all antedated to March 13, 1865 as equals even though the awarded brevit occurred later. It wasn't temporary. I believe he was a Captain on March 13, 1865, a Major on March 2, 1867. See List of American Civil War brevet generals (Union)#Union-R. This is noticed in a lot of documents where he seemingly jumps around in ranks around Yellowstone which was after the civil war but before 1867. He sent reports as Captain and as Major but by the time they were sent to congress, they had awarded the brevet brigadier general (see [2]). He was also a brevetted colonel but I am not sure of the date. A book citation for him in one on the light house assignments in 1882 was "Col. William F. Raynolds, Corps of Engineers, Brevet Brigadier-General, U.S. Army, Philadelphia, Pa."[3] in the 1882 lighthouse board report. Don't know if Corps of Engineers was still separate from the Army. In any case, the important point is that the brevet was not temporary and it was antedated to a date before the end of the Civil War as many were. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to keep his advancement through the ranks as chronological as possible. It's sometimes confusing to word so readers know the difference between brevetted ranks and permanent ranks. I cleaned up as we discussed the issue of the brevet being temporary but aside from routine brevet ranks of second lieutenant given to recent graduates from West Point due to a lack of available and budgeted ranks, upper ranking brevet awards were done mainly for meritorious service and offered no pay or increase in authority. A major brevetted colonel would still not outrank a non-brevetted lieutenant colonel.--MONGO 03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I didn't find anywhere that he was ever in a Brigadier General position of command (which is how Lincoln brevetted certain Generals and it seems Johnson nominated him post civil war purely for service and antedated to March 13, 1865). I couldn't find a way to word or explain it in short order in the lead other than it was antedated and awarded for civil war service. The rank only counted outside his regular command which was why the Yellowstone report to Congress through Stanton looks jacked up. It's cleaner to keep his rank through it's ordinary progression. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may be differences as well which you touch on in which ranks within the engineer corp were different than those in the regular army.--MONGO 17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_F._Raynolds/archive1&oldid=1088821192"