Jump to content

Talk:Armwell Long

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Not necessarily, but hooks can be declined if they aren't punchy, and the guidelines do encourage more concise hooks. Also, the guidelines state that reviewers have the discretion to decline hooks that are slightly below the character limit (i.e. they can accept them, but they can also decline them). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those hooks are each good so I can approve those. Also, I'm sorry for misgendering you. I think I meant to write their but idk. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outranked George Washington?

[edit]

The source cited for the claim that Armwell Long once outranked George Washington says that he did so during the "French Canadian War," which presumably refers to the French and Indian War. Considering Long was not even a year old when that war began, this claim is obviously false. Why are we promoting it on the Main Page? Jrt989 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a random reader who finds the DYK feature fun, but this is hardly the first one that's just embarrassing. The source, just as a baseline, seems wholly unreliable - it meanders without any clear focus, repeats almost an entire paragraph of text, and I suspect is directly plagiarizing the last paragraph in its middle column - it's bad journalism stylistically at the bare minimum, and it reads like the writer got stuck covering a gathering and just parroted whatever random family lore the attendees shared. But even going past that, having been friends with George Washington is hardly enough to make a person notable on its own (and certainly having outranked him at some point can be said of a large number of people).
I just don't get why, out of the millions of articles on this site, this one was worth emphasizing. The individual in question seems to be of minimal interest, and the article is very poorly sourced. 66.211.251.59 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source, just as a baseline, seems wholly unreliable – The Delmarva News is considered reliable; having been friends with George Washington is hardly enough to make a person notable on its own – Long is clearly notable – meeting NPOL (which gives automatic notability) and having several pieces of SIGCOV. And what are you talking about when you say the article is very poorly sourced? (Also: I just don't get why, out of the millions of articles on this site, this one was worth emphasizing. The individual in question seems to be of minimal interest – that's irrelevant; DYK is meant to showcase new quality articles – and this is one of them, so that's not an issue). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jrt989. The cited source is of dubious quality to justify this Did You Know item. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They could have gotten the war wrong. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the hook says that Delaware politician Armwell Long was said to have (i.e. we've got reliable sources stating that he did, but its not 100% certain they're correct) once outranked his close friend, George Washington? – so I think the hook's fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only "could" they have gotten the war wrong, they did. The Delmarva News said, "At one time, during the French Canadian War, he out ranked and was a close friend of a Virginian named George Washington." (1) There was no "French Canadian War." (2) The writer probably was thinking of the French and Indian War, but that war ended before Long was 9 years old. Washington did serve in that war, and was promoted to colonel when Long was 1 year old. Hence, Long presumably did not serve in the French and Indian War, either, much less outrank Washington during it. (3) Long did serve in the American Revolutionary War, but he could not have outranked Washington since Washington started his involvement in the war as a general and Commander in Chief; from his first day of service, nobody outranked him. I don't think it's a good idea to cite clearly erroneous sources on the grounds that "well, they said it, so we can say that it was said to be true, regardless of whether it makes any sense". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be completely contrary to Wikipedia's mission to highlight patently erroneous "facts" simply on the basis that someone writing a column for a local newspaper once said it was true. Jrt989 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While the "Delmarava News" might be considered a reliable source of current news, a startling statement from a columnist covering a local gathering of descendants, probably made by one of them, with no other source and not fact checked by the author or an editor, can hardly be deemed reliable. Long was born in the year the "French Canadian War" (known to almost everyone but the columnist as the French and Indian War, or the Seven Years War worldwide, if you like), started. He was 8 years old when it ended. So he hardly could have been in the service. As Metropolitan90 points out, Washington was general and commander in chief of the Continental Army from the outset of his service in the American Revolutionary War. There are 1296 pages of text in "The Spirit of Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as told by Participants," edited by Henry Steel Commager and Richard B. Morris. There is not a single mention of Armwell Long. Nor is there any mention of him in the 664 pages of "The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789" by Robert Middlekauff, part of the The Oxford History of the United States. I am sure I could cite several other such instances of non-mention just from my own library. I would like to see someone come back with a source from a reputable historian or even verifiable original source for Armwell Long's outranking of George Washington, or even of him being involved in any significant participation in combat in the the American Revolutionary War. What I would expect: Crickets. This easily debunked "Did you know" item should have never have been approved. Too bad that it, rather than the facts, will gain some notoriety and repetition after appearing on the front page of Wikipedia. (I don't challenge Long's notability for an article overall.) Donner60 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested at WP:ERRORS an alternative hook that could be used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Armwell Long/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs) 23:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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:
  • Added cats: United States military personnel of the American Revolution, American military personnel of the War of 1812
  • I know this article isn't super long but maybe expand lead a little.
    • Tried expanding.
  • "Later life and death"
    • Done.
  • "member of the Prince George's Chapel" Remove the?
    • Done.
  • "on Easter Monday" Is there a link for Easter Monday?
    • Done.
  • "at the Prince George's Chapel" Remove the
    • Done.
  • "executor of will" change to "executor of his will"
    • Done.
  • "commissioner of the Levy Court in 1798" add the levy court note from the other GA review I guess
    • Done.
  • Did this guy have a political party?
    • Didn't find one.
  • "an Act of Congress" link?
    • Done.
  • "Long was appointed by governor Nathaniel Mitchell lieutenant colonel of the 10th Delaware Regiment" change to "Long was appointed lieutenant colonel of the 10th Delaware Regiment by governor Nathaniel Mitchell"
    • Done.
  • "grant from Lord Baltimore" link?
    • Done.
  • Couldn't find a picture, I presume?
    • Correct.

That's all. Great research. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armwell_Long&oldid=1254230847"