Talk:George S. Greene/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this up shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks reports no issues except two external links which change domain and/or path. One of those is Greene's report from Antietam, which seems to be in order (after a manual check), while the Cox's Official Report links to p. 979 of the The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 47 (Part I). Is that alright?
While I'm at it, ref #17 says Palmer, pp. 234–35; Cox's Official Report. That appears to be two different works, so why not use two separate refs?
Copyvio detector reports no problems with the article (no action required)
Right now dablinks seems to be out of order, I'll get that later on or check for any dab links manually. (no action required, at least right now)
There are several duplicate links which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are Brig. Gen., Joseph K. Mansfield, American Society of Civil Engineers and regular army.
On the topic of Birg. Gen., I would not abbreviate the rank (nor Maj. Gen.), but I suppose that's not a dealbreaker here. Nonetheless, I'm concerned that a casual reader might not be readily familiar with the ranks and recognise the abbreviations' meanings.
Image licences appear to be in order. (no action required)
The bottom image should have a map key item for the "red" forces/positions/movements in addition to that of the Union. The upper image requires no map key.
What are sources of the information presented in the two maps?
Other than the above issues, referencing seems to be in order (no additional action required)
Year ranges such as 1823–1836 should be presented as 1823–36 per WP:DATERANGE
I'd rather have no brackets around the following sentence: " (Classmates of Greene's included future Union Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas, Joseph K. Mansfield, David Hunter, Dennis Hart Mahan, and Albert Sidney Johnston.) " but that's no dealbreaker either - it just seems unnecessary.
What did Greene do during the 25 years preceding 1862. It seems an awfully long gap in the article coverage.
The article should provide unit conversions such as 200 yards (180 metres)
Acronym MOLLUS should be spelled out.
Word "famous" should be removed from "...during the famous Battle of Hampton Roads." per WP:PEACOCK.
I'm not quite sure what is the purpose of the second paragraph of the "Legacy" section. It offers no information on the topic of the article itself, or its background. Does it really add anything to coverage of the article topic? (seems to be off topic)
Article lead should offer a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Right now I think that the lead is probably a bit too short, offering next to no information on Greene's life besides his military service (which could also benefit from a couple of extra sentences to interest casual readers into reading on) and the lead states that "His greatest contribution during the war was his defense of the Union right flank at Culp's Hill during the Battle of Gettysburg.". While that seems quite possible from the rest of the article, the statement is not carried in the main body of the article itself, where it should be attributed and referenced.

Overall, the article is interesting to read and the topic is well worthy of a DYK main page appearance. Nice work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The images were made by the original article creator, User:Hlj, who has made enough of them and studied enough of the topic that I don't doubt the accuracy. Everything else is fixed sans the legacy section, which I think is ok. It hits on his family, and while noting the careers of the children is on the tangential side, I think it adds a good touch to the end of the article. I'm not married to the idea though so if you're still against that I can trim it. Wizardman 15:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't consider the paragraph on Greene's family is a dealbreaker here. Looking at the "Legacy" section again, perhaps the title of the section misled me to expect text on which school or navy vessel or whatever was named after him. At any rate, I have no further qualm in respect of that section. Maybe another section title would be better, but I have no clue which one would that be, so I'll leave it at that.

Regarding the images, I assume good faith and trust that Hlj knew what he was doing. Nonetheless, GA criteria require sourcing, therefore I googled up a few of maps [1] and [2], and [3] which appear to corroborate the ones available at the Commons, at least in the area of Culp's Hill, which is central for Greene and this article. Since the two maps do not cover the right flank of Greene's troops in that detail, I'm reluctant to add the two as sources to the commons, but I'm quite willing to accept the maps in the article as sourced. I'd be far happier if there were a reference available for the readers to verify this info - Would you mind adding one or possilby a couple of {{cite web}} templates in image captions where appropriate using any one of the above (or their combination if needed)?

Otherwise, improvements look good. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; refs for the maps now added. Wizardman 16:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I saw the addition of the refs and that they were promptly removed by Hlj. From the edit summary I surmise that Hlj believes there is a better ref. Therefore I invited Hlj to comment here in this edit. I trust we'll sort this out shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the map noted at his talkpage that he is widely published, which I checked and found at least this and this book (did not look any further) containing dozens of maps attributed to him. In my opinion this establishes circumstances indicated at WP:SPS where self-published sources are acceptable. I'm leaving this note here both to indicate to the nominator that a particular action (addition of references) is no longer required, but also to indicate to future reviewers why did an article with two apparently unreferenced maps pass GA.

Right then, congrats on the successful GAN!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great article thanks ... Risk Engineer (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]