Talk:Ira Roe Foster/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The source of the pictures is not stated. What evidence is there that they are photos of Foster?
"In 1841, Foster became a licensed lawyer in Cherokee County, Georgia, serving as that county's State Representative in the legislature." No ref for this, as the ref only refers to the next sentence about timber.
"He remained active in Georgia state politics into the Reconstruction period." No reference and not relevant to early life. Move to lead?
"Foster served with distinction as a colonel of a mounted infantry" "served with distinction" is POV. It should be omitted or a quote as someone's opinion.
"During the American Civil War, Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown appointed Foster Quartermaster General for the state of Georgia." Appointment date?
"all faced the prospect of frostbite, pleuricy, or pneumonia in the coming winter." Should be spelled pleurisy - is the typo in the original?
"The sources of dangers to the mills was not always clear...." The author's name should be stated in the text for a quote like this. E.g. "According to [name]:"
"Foster worked tirelessly" POV and unsourced.
"Foster's sock campaign..." This paragraph appears to be based on a contemporary Confederate source, and is thus POV and original research. Checking the source, it seems to be based on Foster's own account, which is not made clear.
"historian I.W. Avery". A minor point, but a US editor once complained at me writing "historian x". He said it is correct in BrEng but should be "the historian x" in AmerEng. Do you disagree?
The link to Commons seems pointless as the only two media are in the article.
No access date and limited source info for ref 18 on find a grave. BTW I see that the entry for Foster says he re-married after his wife's death, but I assume this is a mistake?
There is a lot of good work in this article, but I have some doubts. It seems to stray into original research and rely on Foster's own account at times, especially on the sock campaign. I am sure these problems can be fixed, but it will need some work. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dudley Miles for your thoughtful comments. I'll try to address your concerns in order.

I initially had some difficulty posting the photos with proper credit to the source, Iris Smale, who is a direct descendant of Foster and owner of the photos. The originals are on her livingroom wall, I believe. I asked another editor for help, with the attribution. I thought he got it right, since "Iris Smale" is listed as the source at the bottom of the image.
This information comes from reference #19, but I should be able to cite a better (more authoritative) source, after a bit of digging in the Georgia state archives.
Yes, I think this statement may be out of place, and should be moved. As for the veracity, that may be self-evident. He worked with Union forces, in a quartermaster capacity, after the war, and also held political office during the Reconstruction period.
Agree. "Served with distinction" is puffery.
I actually don't have the appointment date. I suspect, given Foster's close friendship with Governor Brown, that Foster was the original (and only) war time Quartermaster General. But I'll have to confirm that, which will require some digging.
Yes, a typo on my part. The original source Charleston Mercury (August 26, 1863), and the book Confederate Industry use the spelling pleurisy.
An easy fix. "According to Dr. Harold S. Wilson:"
Agree. "Tirelessly" to be deleted.
I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here. We are not likely to find a Northern newspaper source regarding any aspect of Foster's sock campaign; leaving only Southern (and probably only Georgian) papers. We don't have a direct newspaper article reporting the accusations, but we do have a printed response, addressing the accusations. I don't see how that makes it original research. I can see, at least, the possibility of POV, if Foster's response had been cherry picked from a list of articles on the subject, and held forth as the only version. But there doesn't seem to be any opposing view of this event, during a time when such things were widely discussed. As for the disinformation (if that is one of your concerns): I can probably find examples of Northern disinformation campaigns, if that is required to support the possibility that such a thing might be responsible.
I believe that either way is acceptable in American Eng. So if you wish to change this to "the historian", that is fine.
Someone else put that Commons link in the article, I believe. I don't know the guidelines for that, and would not miss it if it were removed.
The Find A Grave access date can be found in the edit summary, and I can add that information to the reference. I'm sure the source for all the Find A Grave information (and photos) for Foster is Iris Smale. She has been very active on that site, and I believe that she is credited there, as well. I have no information about the second marriage.
I would agree that the original article was weighted heavily in the direction of original research and unsupported statements. Since taking on the task, I believe that I have been able to supply the reliable sources and corroboration necessary to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards. The work would have been more comprehensive, had I been allowed online access to the two large Ira Roe Foster archives, and was able to properly decipher mid 19th century cursive handwriting. As you have pointed out, there is still work to be done. But I don't see the goal as unobtainable. Gulbenk (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dudley Miles. I have made a number of the corrections you recommended. I am still trying to find additional corroberation for the sock rumors. I have also found a number of references to both Union and Confederate disinformation efforts, if you think that should be incorporated into the sock rumor paragraph. I have also fleshed out a few of the paragraphs, and added another 10 reliable references, in an effort to give the article more depth, and less of an "original research" feel, so to speak. In all this recent work, one very important error has been uncovered. The blue box information relates to the evacuation of Milledgeville (the State Capitol), and not to Atlanta. This event took place during Sherman's march to the sea, shortly after the fall of Atlanta. I will be correcting that section within the next day or two, with 2-3 additional sources cited, and additional information included. Gulbenk (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK tell me when you have finished and I will take another look. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles for your patience. I hope that I have addressed the deficiencies you referenced. Of particular concern is the sock section. I could bolster that further, with newspaper articles from other cities in the state, showing the response of women to the request for socks. But it might be redundant. I could also provide information (as an extensive note, or in some acceptable format) about Union and Confederate disinformation efforts, during the war, to show that such activity took place, but nothing that specifically relates to Foster or his sock campaign. I did manage two other references, however: a documented instance of a similar situation in the North, and a reference to rumors/concerns about profiteering by the Quartermaster in Georgia. This review has improved the article. Without it, I would not have found a major error: the quote regarding the capture of Milledgeville (not Atlanta). I could have added more references to that fix, but the ones we have look adequate. So again, thank you, and please proceed with your review. Gulbenk (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

it still says served with distinction, which you agreed is puffery - I would delete.
"He then moved to Georgia where he was elected to the state senate, representing Forsyth County from 1838 to 1839.[1] In 1841" Presumably as a Democrat, but I think it is worth stating here and not only in the infovox.
"Foster became a licensed lawyer in Cherokee County, Georgia, serving as that county's State Representative in the legislature." Shouldn't it be "representative in the state legislature"?
"the whole of the Georgia delegation" whole of the Democrat delegation?
"Foster was forced to keep it under surveillance to insure that the state received its goods." Is it spelled "insure" in the original?
"Either the result of a Union disinformation campaign, or the work of suspicious minds, rumors, which Foster denied as a "malicious falsehood!". This states as fact that the claims were untrue. It needs to be made clear that the whole thing - the fact that there were allegations and that they were untrue - all just rests on Foster's letter to a newspaper.
"Georgia's state capitol" capital?
Some cites have pp when there is only one page and there is an error message on cite 33.
These queries are minor apart from not making clear it is only Foster's word that sock allegations were untrue. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the with distinction wording was actually a statement taken from one of the references cited, but not well explained as such... so I have removed it.
"as a democrat" - Done
The county unit system, in place at that time, gave each county a State Representative in the House of Representatives. The county was also represented in the state legislature by a senator (who had a district which included several counties). The state legislature refers to both the House and the Senate. So "State Representative" is correct here.
The "Georgia delegation" refers to all Representatives and both Senators elected in Georgia, without regard to party. Within the Georgia delegation, there may be subsets, by party affiliation or region... such as the Democratic delegation.
insure→ensure
socks ... I should be able to reword this, later today. This is the only pending change.
capitol→capital
pp.→p. (where applicable)
cite 33 comes up for me. Don't know what to tell you, here.
image was added to the bottom of the Milledgeville section. If you want me to move/delete that image, just let me know.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments and corrections. I went into this thinking that work on the Foster article was difficult, because he is such an obscure figure with so few references to his life and work. But I guess it's a walk in the park compared to your work on events and individuals from pre-conquest England.Gulbenk (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that the error message on cite 33 is hidden by default, so I must have set my preferences to show it. The message is that it uses a deprecated parameter: "coauthors=". Not important, but you could put et al after - say - the third author instead. Thanks for your kind words. Luckily I have access to all the sources I need living in London and being a member of the London Library. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added "et al" as suggested, and deleted co-authors. How does that look?Gulbenk (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socks - Please take a look at the revision, and let me know if it needs addition work. Gulbenk (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an aside, since it couldn't be added to the article (except perhaps under the correspondence collections section) but is there some quick/easy way to determine if there is correspondence in the London Library between Ira Roe Foster and suppliers (or government officials) in the UK? Would that information be limited to members of the library? Gulbenk (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The London Library only has printed sources. You could try the National Archives or the British Library.
Socks looks OK to me now.
One I missed. "Foster worked to maintain supplies and clothes for Georgia soldiers throughout the war, and continuing in his office even after the collapse of the Confederacy." is not referenced. It could be deleted as it repeats what is said elsewhere.
"The Fosterville settlement was, according to author Mary Elizabeth Massey, the most ambitiuos refugee project approved by the Georgia General Assembly [during that period]." I do not remember this. Is it new? Typo "ambitiuos" and should say whether Fosterville named after him or name is coincidence. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointing me to the National Archives and the British Library. I'll take a look there, if possible.
I can add a reference to the post-war activity sentence.
I added the Fosterville paragraph during the review, some days ago. I'm certain that the refugee camp was named after him, since he was the coordinator and it was located in Terrell County, where Foster had so many connections. So while it seems obvious, I just can't find a statement to that effect. I'll try looking for that in other sources.
Missed that typo. Will fix. Gulbenk (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Fosterville name reference. All other corrections completed Gulbenk (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed it now. Congratulations on a first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]