Talk:Charles Mattocks/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

will start in the next coule of days. auntieruth (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Serious issues with section on biography--Martha married at the age of 10? I think you mean when Charles was 10, his mother remarried....but it's not clear. This needs to be rewritten
missing four votes is not almost unanimous.
wasn't it Chamberlain who was promoted from colonel of 17th Maine ? you should mention this. Also that the 17th Maine was comprised of a lot of men from Bowdoin, including Chamberlain.
generally, the writing needs some work and the mixture of citations, explanatory notes using a letter, and citation styles was confusing. I'll not fuss at it over Good Article, but if you take this further, you will get some flak. Best to do a good copy edit; I'll put this on hold until then. auntieruth (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look to do a full over copy edit in the next few days. User:Vermont will have to fix some other issues, as some of it is based on sources I don't have access to. As to the mixed numbered references and lettered footnotes, I use those on almost everything I write on, late 19th Century especially, and didn't get no guff about it at FA. Although admittedly it isn't a supremely popular style, it's still permitted as much as the overall waning Harvard citation style is. GMG ^talk 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can to fix issues within the article. Also, Chaimberlain was not in the 17th Maine. He commanded the 20th Maine. I mentioned that 3 other people from Bowdoin joined the 17th, although I'm not sure who. Vermont (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right re Chamberlain. I was confused. No problem on the style, I just found it confusing. let me know when copy edit is done, and I'll come back. auntieruth (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

btw, love the comment about yards of red tape~ auntieruth (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From writings about him (and reading his journal), his men respected but hated him, and superior officers adored him. He also saw the army as a sort of organized contest; writing a lot in his journal about what officer will get what position after the one previously holding it died. Thus, it produced quite a few humorous comments about him, one of which we just had to include. Vermont (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]