Jump to content

Talk:Corps of Colonial Marines/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review
Criteria
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • at five paragraphs, the lead is currently too long. WP:MOSLEAD asks that we keep the lead to no more than four paragraphs. Please try to combine one of these paragraphs;  Done
  • I'd suggest combining the two infoboxes into one, and moving it up into the lead; (suggestion only, please see comment below)
  • I found the language a little awkward in places. Once you have dealt with my other comments below, I suggest having the article copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors;
  • "They served as part of the British forces on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States during that war" --> It isn't clear what "that war" is. I take it you mean the War of 1812. If so, please be explicit here;  Done
  • this sentence appears to either have a tense issue, or is missing something: "Second Lieutenant Lewis Agassiz (1793–1866) was leading one of the firing parties into Washington D.C. as part of the burning of Washington during the War of 1812."  Done
  • be careful to avoid repeating internal links. The duplicate link checker tool reports the following repeat links that probably should be removed: Alexander Cochrane; Burning of Washington; Royal Marines Battalions (Napoleonic Wars); Cumberland Island;  Done
  • inconsistent presentation: "West Indian Regiments" and then "West India regiments";  Done
  • inconsistent presentation: "Marie Galante" and then "Marie-Galante";  Done
  • inconsistent presentation: "Battle of Negro Fort" and then "battle of Negro Fort";  Done
  • quotations: currently the article mainly seems to use single quotation marks. My understanding of the Manual of Style is that double quotation marks are prefered. e.g. "Smith did this..." as opposed to 'Smith did this'. (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS  Done
  • are all the See also links necessary? If they have been linked in the body of the article, there is no need to display them in a See also section;  Done
    • The question of merging two infoboxes into one has come up once before. I can imagine a similar possibility with an article on "The BEF In Northern France". There are two entities which fit into that category, and the infoboxes serve a use in a compare & contrast of both. (Such an article on the BEF could cover 1914 and 1940 respectively.) The other alternative would be to split the article into two. Given that Cochrane was the driving force behind both in 1808 and 1814 respectively, there would be some reluctance to do this. Keith H99 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose it comes down to whether or not they are considered two different units, or whether it is considered as one unit that was raised and disbanded a couple of times. If the first, then two infoboxes would probably be fine; if the second, the infobox should probably be merged. I'm not too concerned about this point, though, and regardless of how you decide to deal with it, it is not part of the GA criteria, so this is only a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'I suppose it comes down to whether or not they are considered two different units' Yes, they are considered as two different units, hence splitting the article into two, and having the two infoboxes Keith H99 (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
        • Ok. In this regard, I think it makes sense to tell the story of both units in the one article given that there doesn't appear to be much information on the first corps. As such, I had a play around to see if a merged infobox solution might work. Please see this edit: [2] . The advantage of this is it provides room to add an extra image to break up the text. (If you don't like it, please feel free to revert to the two infobox solution that existed before that edit). As I said earlier, though, it is not part of the GA criteria, so whatever you decide to do, it won't affect the result. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have looked to use internal links once only in the article itself, but some links may appear again in the infoboxes & See Also listing.
    • It was drummed into me at school in English lessons that reported speech should be indicated by double inverted commas. A quote from a piece of published work should be enclosed by single inverted commas, and our teacher referred to them as "quotation marks". It is my understanding that MOS follows the American English approach, as opposed to the British English style in which I was versed, so some restyling will need to be done.
    • The idea of having a copy editor review the tidied article is a good one, which I will follow up Keith H99 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • currently the article uses quite a few primary references (e.g. the letters). While this is not forbidden, per WP:PRIMARY it is to be avoided where possible. As such, I would suggest that where possible the information that is sourced to primary documents, be replaced or used in conjunction with citations to secondary sources (or at a pinch tertiary sources);  Done
    • I've had a look at this again, and I think generally the way you use primary sources is okay (although I would suggest providing a little more detail than "ADM 37/8610", etc. (the general reader won't know what this means. I assume it is a catalogue number for a national archive or something similar. Perhaps you could a url linking to the database or something similar?). Anyway, there is one place where I think you might need to add a secondary or a tertiary source to augment the primary sources, though:
  • is there a reference for this: "(There was a historical precedent with Lord Dunmore's Proclamation of 7 November 1775, though this offered freedom only to those who undertook to bear arms with the British forces.)"  Done
  • in the Notes, there are two bare url links (Notes 44 and 45), which would probably be better presented if embedded in some manner (for instance compare what you have done in Note 38);  Done
  • the References are inconsistenty formatted. Compare Gleig with Agassiz for instance. I suggest using the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} templates for them as that will ensure that they are presented in the same format (manual formatting is also fine, so long as it is consistent);  Done
  • in the References, the works that don't have ISBNs might have OCLC numbers that could be used to help readers locate the books. These can usually be found by searching on worldcat.org;  Done
  • in the References, some of the works have publication locations and others don't. This information can also usually be found either in the book itself and/or on worldcat.org;  Done
  • if you are wanting to take this further after the GA review, one suggestion I have is tidying up the Notes section a little. Some of the articles in this category might offer you some suggestions: Category:FA-Class military history articles (this is a suggestion only, and is not linked to the GA criteria)
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • any information that is presented in the lead, should be discussed in the body of the article. For instance, I couldn't find mention in the body of the article of the information about the psychological threat posed by the raising of the force. Same also with the information about Woodbine and Nicolls being demonised in the Niles Register, and the information about the former auxilliary officers being executed in the Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident;  Done
  • please add links such as "company", "battalion", "battery", "squadron" etc. (on first mention of the term);  Done
  • the date of disbandment (20 August 1816) is only mentioned in the lead and the infobox: it should also be mentioned in the body. In this regard you could just change "The battalion was finally disbanded in August 1816" to "The battalion was finally disbanded on 20 August 1816";  Done
  • do any of the sources say exactly how many men served in the corps, either in total or at its peak? Additionally, are there any total/consolidated figures for casualties? If so, I suggest adding maybe one or two sentences to this at the point in the article where you discuss the corps' disbandment.
  • the image shows the corps' uniform; you might consider adding a couple of sentences to the article on this if it can be reliably sourced;
  • did the corps receive any battle honours? If so, and if it can be reliably sourced, I suggest adding it in;
    • The names of the men of the Corps, who were on the pay/muster roll of the Battalion from 03 Sept to 31 Dec 1814, and present on the Atlantic Coast, have been transcribed, and can be found on the website of the UK National Archives. Royal Marine and Colonial Marine deaths in 1814 have been transcribed too. The casualties appear not only on the National Archives website, but also on the 1812casualties.org website too. As for the Colonial Marines on the Gulf Coast, they seem to have numbered around 400, and three sources have been cited which corroborate this figure.
    • The infobox lends itself considerably well to stating the battles where the Corps was present. Although the Corps does appear to have been a success, the powers that be would have downplayed the Corps. There were slaveowners in the West Indies who were every bit as uncomfortable with the existence of the Corps, as their slave-owning counterparts in Virginia. (Alexander Cochrane was a slaveowner, ironically). Issuing colours and battle honours - to a unit which was ostensibly temporrily set up for the duration of that particular conflict, would be an oxymoron. (Presumably the Jewish units in WW1 in Palestine were likewise denied battle honours? I believe this is the case for the Jewish Brigade in 1944 too.)Keith H99 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the unit perpetuated by any current unit? If not, what is its legacy? Are they largely forgotten, or do they form a significant part of Britain's and/or someone else's military history/collective memory etc.? If this can be reliably sourced, a brief mention of this should probably be added to final section of the article.  Done
  • this website has some information that you might be able to work into the article.  Done
  • Seems ok, but I can't make a determination on this until other changes are made above.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • Seems fine in this regard.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
  • the caption of the image probably should be tweaked: "This would be a common sight at Tangier Island. On the battlefield, the red coat of the service uniform would be worn." --> "This was a common sight at Tangier Island, but on the battlefield, the red coat of the service uniform was worn."
  • the image used seems appropriately licenced;  Done
  • I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to add an image of Cochrane to the article, given his prominence in raising the unit. There appears to be a freely licenced version here: File:Alexander Cochrane.jpg (suggestion only). If you are to do this, though, you would probably need to play around with the positioning of the infoboxes and/or the other image etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • There are a few points that need to be covered off on before the article can be promoted to GA. I will place the review on hold for seven days and await for a response. Of course, I'm happy to keep it on hold for a bit longer than that if it seems like progress is being made. Please feel free to ask any questions about my comments in the section below. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/questions about the review
  • G'day, Keith, your changes look quite good so far. I've looked over the article again this weekend and made a few changes myself (please review these and adjust if you don't agree with them). I've also crossed off what has been dealt with so far on the review and I've also added a couple more queries that have come to me as I read over it again. Could you let me know how you are getting on with the outstanding points? For me, the main ones that remain are those about the coverage (e.g. the information that is in the lead, but not in the body of the article, etc.), and having the article copy edited. If these points can be covered off on, the review can most probably be wrapped up. The review has been open around six days now, but I'd be more than happy to leave it open longer. It is Sunday where I am, and I will be quite busy next week at work, so I probably won't get to look at the review again until maybe next Thursday night at the earliest (next Saturday at the latest). Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Rupert. As you've seen, I've been able to make several changes based upon your recommendations. I've not been able to keep up the momentum on this, over this weekend, but it it my intention to make headway on this during the week. If it's possible to keep this open until, say, Friday, then all of the required work should be done by then. Thank you for the time you have given so far, and thank you for your courteous nature of communication. Keith H99 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Hi Rupert. This seems to have taken over my life. If I am not at work, or asleep, then I am massaging this article. I have hit a stumbling block with regard the CITE NEWS templates for three sourced quotes from Niles' Register. Once this has been overcome, I can then approach a copy editor. It is very frustrating, as I am nearly there with the edits. Keith H99 (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • G'day, I believe that I've fixed the template issue. I also made a couple of other changes. Please check that you are happy with these. Also, please note, I've added a query above in the referencing section that I think you may have missed. I agree, though, engaging a copy editor now would make sense. Regarding keeping the review open, I'm more than happy with the progress, so I would be fine with leaving the review open another week if necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Rupert. Thanks for your continued assistance. I have added a secondary source, and edited one of the Niles' Register links, so it is consistent with the others. The infobox works well; I didn't think they could be that flexible, hence my original preference for two separate boxes. I have submitted a request for a copy editor review, so hopefully this will be completed very soon. Cheers Keith H99 (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corps_of_Colonial_Marines/GA1&oldid=1145921376"