Talk:William Henry Harrison Seeley

VC gazetted?

I found the Captain's report of the action, and the casualty report; but was unable to find any record of the VC award or presentation in the London Gazette. Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Henry Harrison Seeley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: CommissarDoggo (talk · contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your contributions. I think with a little bit of work this article can make GA.

As a side note I saw you had some Russian proficency and thought you might enjoy my recent article Zemstvo.

Now let's get to it

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"By the 1850s, he was either a longshoreman or dock labourer." In my mind longshoreman is a type of dock labourer so you can just say that?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This is not a good citation. Is this a book? "Great Britain, the Great Powers, and the Shimonoseki Incident, Roman Kodet"  Done
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Removed comment I had accidently copy pasted from another review Czarking0 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is not much detail for the Chinese medal. The article seems to not even cover what it was for.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think this needs some work. The background section goes into far too much detail. 4-5 sentences is all that should be given not its own section.  Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Ok, looking through the review I'll go through what you've added.

1a. I was completely unaware of that, I've now sorted that issue.

•  Done

2d. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this one, when I was fixing 1a I searched for certain words included in your quote and couldn't find any mention of that, could you point out where in the article I used that?

• My apologies, I meant to leave this comment on a different review.  Done

3a. I actually remember searching for more information on this and didn't find anything about it, nor could I figure out what version of the China medal he would have received, so the mention will simply have to be removed.

• Why removed? I thought the quote was notable but if that is all the info you can find I think you can leave it as is.

3b. I can cut this down, yes, and will get to that at some point today. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 05:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've sorted out 1a, removed the mention of the China medal as per 3a and have cut down the Background section as per 3b. As stated prior, I will need extra clarification for 2d as I'm now certain that there is nowhere in the article where that text is mentioned @Czarking0. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Responded Czarking0 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify on the China medal, the quote will remain there, I've just removed the part prior to the quote where the medal is mentioned. There were two renditions of a medal for service in China, one for service during the First Opium War and another for service during the Boxer Rebellion.

  He could well have been mentioning a specific award he won for conduct during the conflict or it could have been a wider conflict medal, but I'd simply rather have that specificity. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Czarking0 Tagging as a reminder. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I misunderstood but I think I am waiting on you to edit the Background section? Are you expecting some response from me? Czarking0 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, to the background section. I've already cut it down a decent amount compared to what it was. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  You should be able to look through it now, I've finished faffing about with it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I added a section below about this Czarking0 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Reducing the Background

My suggestions:

• "Daimyo Mōri Takachika of the Chōshū Clan supported the emperor,[3] declaring that after the 10th day of the 5th month (according to the traditional Japanese calendar), all foreign ships traversing the Straits of Shimonoseki were to be fired upon without warning. "

Change to "Foreign ships were banned from crossing the Straights of Shimonoseki after (actual date here)

• "Following the deadline, several European ships were attacked. On June 25, the US merchant steamer SS Pembroke was attacked, suffering minor damage.[8][9][10][11] The French aviso Kien Chan was attacked the next day, being hit 18 times by shore batteries, suffering four casualties and a damaged engine.[9][11][12] On July 11, despite receiving a warning from the crew of the Kien Chan, the 16-gun Dutch warship Medusa sailed into the straits. The Medusa was fired upon by shore batteries and two vessels and, in the following dash through the straits, was hit 31 times, leaving four dead and five wounded.[9][12]"

Change to "Following the deadline, several European ships were attacked while attempting to cross the straights. This resulted in the death of French and Dutch sailors"

Czarking0 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Found a specific date from a source already on the page and reduced this segment.
2. I've condensed this segment further, but I'd like to avoid reducing it to the suggested degree if possible.

CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok why is that? My thought is that there is already a page on the battle itself. The background here should cover the minimum that is needed to understand the notability of Seeley. To me the specific vessels damages and the extent of their damage is irrelevant to Seeley's actions. Czarking0 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

My thought process is that all of it is relevant background to how Seeley came to be involved. Without those attacks on foreign shipping, the retaliatory strikes that they caused and the umming and ahing by Takachika and the Choshu, that international squadron would never have been sent and Seeley would likely have been relegated to a personnel manifest.

It also explains why each individual navy sent what they did to take part in the squadron. The US was limited to a single ship because of the ongoing civil war and the French were tied up in Mexico so could only send 3 ships, but the Dutch sent a decent contingent, including the Medusa, as did the British due to being a part of the treaty and the destruction of property/potential loss of trade and ships due to the closure. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 09:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok I think there is some middle ground here. For your first paragraph I think you have a good point and should keep the parts about Takachika and the Choshu.

For your second, I think your objective "explain why each individual navy sent what they did to take part in the squadron" is notable and relevant. However, the names of the ships and the extent of the damage did not prove that point to me. I simply read it as a notable accounting of the damage. Something along the lines of "the US sent one vessel and the French sent three each vessel took significant damage and several sailors died. The British and Dutch navies sent larger contingents in response to treaty obligations". Obviously that needs to be cleaned up a but and sources cited, but I think you get the idea? Czarking0 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

How about that, the most recent edit? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, will do some additional spot checks about the citations but I think the content is satisfactory Czarking0 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations

My apologies, I didn't realise you'd already responded in the section for citations, so I'll go over the comment you added. That PDF isn't a book, it's quite a well researched (and well cited, looking at the bottom of each page) paper on the general incident by Roman Kodet, a historian and Japanologist from the University of West Bohemia. Here is the introduction given on the university's page: Professional historian and Japanologist working as an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Arts of the University of West Bohemia in Pilsen. He is a specialist in early modern Japanese history and the Meiji Period. During his career, he specialized in the history of the samurai class, Japan's relations with the Western world, and cultural history. In 2018 he established a Center of Japanese Studies, through which he cooperates with institutions in Japan and worldwide.

To clarify, there doesn't seem to be any guidance against the use of PDF's, so I would ask what makes it a bad citation? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying the source was bad, I was saying the citation was. It is not clear how to find the source form the citation.

I found the document and the general citation should be and the specific page number should be called out. Czarking0 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I added the URL you had to my recomendation and changed the page. If you are in agreement I will approve GA, when you add the page number Czarking0 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, seems good to me. I'll work on ensuring that all of the pages are properly pointed out as I know I used quite a decent amount. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There we go, page numbers are now added, I thought I used a larger majority of the article to be honest but I can't complain.

Thanks for all your help with getting the article ship-shape, I likely wouldn't have noticed some of the issues with inaccuracy in the article without this process. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Bruxton talk 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that William Henry Harrison Seeley was the first American recipient of the Victoria Cross?

• Source: https://militaryhistorynow.com/2020/04/14/meet-william-h-h-seeley-the-first-american-to-win-britains-victoria-cross/

• Reviewed: [[]]
• Comment: For the source, note that there are two newspaper sources that I couldn't get to as it seems that the access through The Wikipedia Library is down currently.

Improved to Good Article status by CommissarDoggo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

• Comments by Tbhotch

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: An article that was recently promoted to GA. No picture to review. No QPQ is needed, this is your fourth nomination. No copyright issues on text and files. The hook is interesting and sourced. The article is sourced and I assume good faith on the inaccessible sources. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Hey man im josh was unsure if the source provided above is reliable, and Isochrone found another source that is very likely reliable. CommissarDoggo, if you agree, could you please replace the source in this nomination and in the article itself? (I have no idea if I'm allowed to add comments here, I hope I don't break anything) Toadspike [Talk] 20:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Hey man im josh: @Toadspike: I've removed quite a large majority of the uses, either removing the content attributed to it because it isn't massively important or removing the uses that are backed up by other citations. The only two I haven't removed are key to the background (leadup to the campaign in regards to the Choshiu) and to his service history.

For the latter I'm going to be very hard pressed to remove it solely because I don't remember there being any other sources for his service prior to Shimonoseki. The prior I can probably find another source for and will attempt to tonight as I think I already have an idea there. Feel free to either reply here or, as josh (I think? I don't remember who tagged me) did earlier, tag me on Discord if you have any qualms. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)