Jump to content

Talk:William T. Anderson/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: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 02:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
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.
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).
2c. it contains no original research. Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good
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. Per definition
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. See below
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. See below
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Comments

[edit]
  • As you are bound to bring this to FAC, I'll be very thorough.
  • Ensure that the capitalisation of Northern and Southern is in accordance with the MOS.
    • I think I took care of them.

1

[edit]
1a
Lede
  • "He distinguished himself by the leading role he took in the Lawrence Massacre and later participated in the Battle of Fort Blair." -- Why not "He distinguished himself by taking a leading role in the Lawrence Massacre, then later participated in the Battle of Fort Blair."
  • "... while the two spent the winter in Texas,..." -- Which two? You mention both Quantrill and Todd in the above paragraph
    • Did both.
Early life
  • "... to William C. Anderson and Martha Anderson." -- Why not "... to William C. and Martha Anderson."?
  • "Although the Anderson family did not own slaves, they supported the institution of slavery." -- Is "... of slavery" necessary?
  • "After settling in Council Grove..." -- Thought they settled east of it
    • Fixed both.
Horse trading
  • "He became incensed by the accusations and was particularly angered that Baker issued the arrest warrant." -- Which Anderson became incensed?
    • Think I clarified.
  • "historian Bruce Nichols argues that Reed led the gang until mid-July" -- any other positions?
    • I don't understand what you're asking here?
      • Do any historians have a different opinion of the matter?
Quantrill's Raiders
  • "... enabling vicious guerrilla warfare in the state." -- I'm sure "vicious guerrilla warfare" could have occurred without Confederate sympathies. Another word?
    • How's "prompting"?
  • "... where he served under George M. Todd." - Why under Todd and not Quantrill?
    • Quantrill led the whole group, he had unit leaders under him, Anderson was in a unit led by Todd--tried to clarify.
  • "... network of support ..." -- Support network?
    • Yes, that is much better, wonder why I didn't say that.
Lawrence Massacre
  • "... the largest guerrilla force under one commander in the war, ..." - Not quite pleased with the wording, thinking something like "... which proved to be the largest guerrilla force under one commander in the war, ..."
  • "Provost Marshall of Kansas" - Huh? Clarification, maybe a footnote. Or even better, a link
  • "Although some men begged him to spare them, he was not dissuaded, although he did respond to the pleas of a woman who asked him not to burn her house." -- "Although ... although"
    • Good catches, done all three.
Return to Missouri
  • "... gaining about $40,000 in the robbery, although Anderson returned some money to his friend." -- The acquaintance at the hotel?
    • Clarified.
  • Allen, Missouri -- Worth a redlink? Or is it actually Glen Allen, Missouri?
    • This actually confused me, I think the source just said Allen, Missouri, I'll have to look into it some more.
    • Linked for consistency, Glen Allen is pretty far from where they were that day.
Missouri River and Fayette
  • Why did you repeat Jesse James instead of just saying James?
    • His brother was actually a member of the gang too, spelled it out a bit.
  • "bushwhackers" -- Is that formal?
    • No idea, I guess I could standardize it to guerrillas.
Raid on Centralia
  • "and searching the town." - For what?
    • Anything they could steal that wasn't bolted down :)

2

[edit]
2a
  • "cold-blooded" - Source? (lede)
    • Removed quote, rephrased.
  • "T. J. Stiles argues that Anderson was not necessarily a "sadistic fiend", but illustrated how young men became part of a "culture of atrocity" during the war." - Source needs to be directly after direct quotes
    • Good catch, done.
2b
  • Standardise capitalisation and linking of publishers
    • Think I got it.

3

[edit]
3a
  • T. stands for...?
    • Tiberius :)
  • "third in command" - Behind whom? (Texas)
    • explained.
  • "including a congressman and a plainclothes sheriff" - Congressman? Probably has or worth an article if we know his name (Raid on Centralia)
    • Good point, I wonder why I didn't do that before.
  • Frank James - Probably worth noting why his opinion matters (Raid on Centralia)
    • Noted
  • "the body was photographed" - Does the source have the photograph? High EV (death)
    • Done.
  • "owing to a cold winter and the defeat of General Price's forces" -- What battle? (death)
    • Rephrased.
  • Any information about these historians? Credits or position?
    • Added a bit of context.

6

[edit]
6a
6b
  • More information in the captions would show that the images belong. A look at Jesse James suggests that he wasn't too key in Anderson's group.

Comments from Accedie

[edit]

I'd say it's pretty obviously GA with flying colors, but since I'm sure the authors won't be satisfied with that humble distinction, I'll be extra picky for the inevitable next round of reviewing :)

  • Watch for "X was angered" (already mentioned this to Mark) – I think I refactored most of them to avoid the repetition, but there might still be one too many. So much anger here!
  • Few other overuses: semicolons and dashes that could just be merged into longer sentences. Again, I did a little work on that, but it could probably stand a bit more. Not a big deal but annoying to us grammar nazis.
  • Found several examples where it wasn't actually clear which part of the sentence was being referenced by a ref tag (the name? the date? the verb?), so I moved the tags to the end. Since a lot of them come out of the same book and often the same couple of pages, it might be worth going through and consolidating/getting rid of extraneous ones (Wood especially).
  • Pet peeve: walls of text! I broke 'em up a bit with some level threes, but maybe they need better titles.
  • More diverse sources, plz! Here's one that claims Union soldiers cut off Bill's head and stuck it on a telegraph pole, then dragged his body through the streets of Richmond...

Other than that, very nice article. Won't say it was a pleasure to read, but, well, you know. Instructive! Accedietalk to me 01:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments and all the help copyediting, the references and short sentences are perennial issues with me. The level threes look ok to me, if you can believe it, the walls of text were even worse on my first draft. Interesting that you bring up the head issue, I just happened to glace at a passage about it earlier today. It's likely apocryphal, but probably does deserve a mention. There are a few notes like that I will try to add soonish. Thanks again, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's pretty clear that consensus is to pass this as a GA, I will do so on the assumption that Mark will try to add a bit more variety of sources in preparation for FAC Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, yes, I shall endeavor too--I have a couple in mind already. Moving forward, I'll try to make sure I have enough historical background and add more notes about divergences between sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_T._Anderson/GA1&oldid=1142292808"