Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [1].

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

[edit]

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the criteria. I also believe there is a scarcity of FA's pertaining to individual regiments in the American Civil War. While there are plenty of wonderful FA's on battles, campaigns and generals, there are very few describing the war with regard to the experiences of a single unit over the course of the war. The article has received a general peer review here and a Military History Project peer review here. I think the resulting suggestions and edits have brought this article up to FA candidacy. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. It can get a bit confusing with different sources using many different combinations of the words Massachusetts, Volunteer, Infantry and Regiment. But their regimental history uses 21st Regiment MVI, so I'll stick with that and have fixed the inconsistencies. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that one. It's been added. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I had originally felt it was reliable because the article has a good bibliography. But, after going over wp:source again, I think you're quite right--this is not a good source. Fortunately, Stephen Oates in A Woman of Valor, (a source I've already included) provides plenty of information about the connection between Plunkett and Clara Barton. So, I've removed the online source, re-written the sentence a little to better reflect what Prof. Oates had to say, and replaced the ref with Oates. I imagine this is where the website author got his information in the first place.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 55 lacks a publisher
I think I've taken care of this. The "publisher" I had originally listed at the title of the work. This is a self-published website, but in accordance with wp:source, I think it's kosher to use because it's simply providing evidence that the subject organization exists.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catton book was originally published much earlier than 2004, it should note the original publication dates.
I've added the original publication date in the references list.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments : Overall I think this is very well done, I have a couple of comments:
    • the last sentence of Organization and early duty needs a citation;
    • distances and values etc. should be converted using the template {{convert}} - there is an example in the Battle of New Bern section that does not (16 miles, should also show kms);
    • in the Northern Virginia Campaign section, in the first sentence I think there is a typo - "suppose" should probably be "supposed";
    • in the Consolidation with the 36th Massachsetts section, the word "reenlist", should it be "re-enlist"? You have used "re-enlist" previously (i.e. in the lead);
    • in the The 21st Massachusettes today should "reenacting" be "re-enacting"?
    • also, with the same section, I suggest perhaps renaming it "Legacy", if only to remove the "The" from the title, which I believe is generally not considered good form (I can't remember if there is a policy on this, though);
    • only a suggestion: the References could be formatted with {{citation}};
    • only a suggestion: the individual citations could be linked to the ref section with {{harvnb|author surname|year|p=#}};

Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments. I appreciate the corrections. I've addressed them as follows:
The last sentence of "Organization" has a reference. I'm guessing you meant the last sentence of the first paragraph. So, I added one there.
Missed that conversion. Thanks. It's been added.
Added "supposed"
Added "re-enlist"
I've always used "reenact"—it's in Webster's. ("Reenlist" is not, so that should be hyphenated).
I like "Legacy." Come to think of it, it's consistent with a lot of other historical articles, so I've changed it according to your suggestion.
I've used {{citeweb}} for websites but I haven't used a citation template for books. I'll certainly add them if it's considered standard for FA.
I haven't used the {{harvnb}} template before, but again, if that's considered the standard for FA's I'll certainly add it. Probably would be good for me to learn that method anyway, so I'll work on that.
Thanks again. Cheers, Historical Perspective (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it looks good. I don't know if the last two are requirements at FA, as I've not had much experience reviewing at this level. The criteria page does not seem to indicate that they are requirements. I might have missed something, though. Anyway, happy to support now. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I peer reviewed this and thought it was quite good - since then some more modern sources have been added and a questionable one replaced, and I think this now meets the FA criteria. Well done. My only suggestion (and this does not detract from my support) is to wonder if there is any more that could be said about the legacy? Did any of the veterans become prominent politcal officeholders, for example? Did they have reunions? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I am embarrassed that I didn't include something about Col. William S. Clark's career after the war...Col. Clark's article is another one of my pet projects and I should have thought of it. So, I've added a paragraph. Thanks! I tried to dig up some info on reunions or other members who went on to make notable achievements but couldn't find much. I'm sure there were others, but I just haven't come across any info yet. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Charles Edward

  • Needs refs:

**"The 21st, about 900 strong, boarded the steamer Northerner on January 6, 1862."

    • "The 21st, numbering 675 men, led their brigade in the march on New Bern, discovering many abandoned fortifications."
    • "In their advanced position, the 21st suffered significant casualties and was soon forced to abandon the brickyard."
    • "On September 1, the regiment, now numbering 400, marched northwest from Centreville with the rest of Ferrero's brigade."
    • "The 21st, leaving two companies behind at South Mountain for guard detail, now numbered only 150 men."
    • "In the latter engagement, the 21st acted as rear guard and bore the brunt of a fierce attack but held their position."
    • "Now numbering less than 100 men, the regiment had been reduced to a tenth of its original size."
    • "One of the most disastrous for the Union army was the Battle of the Crater during which explosives were detonated in a large mine tunneled beneath the Confederate entrenchments, temporarily creating a gap in their lines."
    • "More than two-thirds of the remaining men chose to re-enlist."
    • "The famous Civil War nurse, Clara Barton, was born and raised in Oxford, Worcester County, Massachusetts and knew many of the men in the 21st Massachusetts"
    • "They arrived in Newport News, Virginia on July 9."
    • Paragraph starting with "During July, two additional divisions.." has no citations.
  • General:
    • There is no see also section or a link to the featured Portal:ACW. Both would be appropriate for an article of this type to link to the greater articles encompassing this one.
    • I believe the books sources listed in "References" should have the years of publication in parentheses, like this: (2006). You may want to consider use cite templates for the references.
    • The age of Walcott, Woodbury, and Bowen as sources is potentially a problem. The bulk of the article is sourced from them. Are there no more modern comprehensive sources? Bowen is littered with northern propaganda terms, and may not be entirely neutral. Woodbury is likewise a tribute book to the north, but read more neutrally from my skimming of it. Walcott was a member of the regiment, and his book could be considered a Primary source.
    • Some of your sources are available in full or in part on google books, it would be appropriate to link to them there to better help reader verify their contents.
  • Images
    • You are forcing images sizes, this is discouraged by WP:Images unless there is a good reason to do so.
    • It generally appropriate to put links in image captions. Only the lead image caption has links.
    • File:IXcorpsbadge1.png - image has no source

Overall a well wrote and interesting article. My primary concern in the source, and therefore I am Opposing per criterion 1c. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've altered the article as follows:
  • Refs: I've added citations for each one of the sentences or paragraphs you've listed.
  • General:
  • I've added a "See also" section with a link to the ACW Portal and some other links.
  • I've reformatted the references section using the "cite book" template.
  • After a careful re-reading of WP:Source and WP:Primary, I think I've made appropriate use of old and new sources. I have, wherever possible, tried to back up key facts with citations from more modern sources. Bowen and Woodbury are simply used to verify facts (where the regiment was on what date, etc.). There is no escaping the fact that the best source of information on the regiment, and therefore the source on which I rely most heavily, is the regimental history. I can understand your concern about it being considered a primary source. I think an argument can be made that it is a secondary source given the fact that Walcott weaves together numerous accounts that he gathered and he was not actually with the regiment for its entire term of service (although, admittedly, he was there for much of it). Still, I think his work is a synthesis and not simply a memoir.
  • I've added links to the References section for books available on Google books.
  • Images:
  • I have removed the forced images sizes (I didn't know about that policy) from all the images except for the two in the infobox (these, I think, need to be forced in order to keep the infobox a reasonable size, especially the top one).
  • I've added wikilinks to the captions.
  • I'm not sure what to do about the sourcing on File:IXcorpsbadge1.png. Is that something that can be fixed within this article, or is it an issue with the way the file was uploaded? If it presents a problem, I'll take the image out, although I think it's nifty to have in there.
Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with the way it was uploaded. It can be fixed though. You just need find a published version of the shield in a book, or somewhere, saying it is what it is. Then put a reference on the image page saying where it can be verified. Otherwise who knows if it really the right patch or not? I am striking my oppose per you response regarding the older sources. I don't personally have access to the newer sources, and accept your response in good faith. Good job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last line of the Battle of New Bern section quotes the number 58 for casualties, but the math provided at the end in parenthesis seemingly contradicts this. Is this an error, and if not, can the info be clarified? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was an error. I've fixed it. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • It might be a personal style thing, but you might consider adding commas in the lead before "during which" and "including". I notice other places where an optional comma might be inserted, given that you do use them liberally in some places ("In May 1862, the ..").
  • The thousand down to a hundred men: were 900 killed or injured, or did that include resignations, etc. It's dramatic, so it would be nice to know rather than let it hang until the details below.
  • "fewer than 100", not "less than 100".
  • Couple of images I enlarged a bit. Is the Burnside bridge better on your system now? (Interested to know.) It's a good pic, isn't it.
  • Just a small thing for the future: "Following these failed assaults" ... in normal prose, I'd avoid the f ... f if it's easy to do so.
  • A small thing: could you put a <p> after the dash before "Apr" in the infobox? You could afford to spell out the months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 12:49, March 6, 2010
Thanks! I've made the following changes:
  • Got the commas
  • This is a great point. It was rather mysterious as written. I've added a follow-up sentence describing the various reasons for the losses...how many killed, wounded, etc.
  • Fixed "less than..."
  • Following your lead, I also enlarged the Chantilly image a tad. It was just too difficult to see any detail at the default size. The Burnside's Bridge image looks great. I was fascinated when I found that on the Commons. Did you upload that?
  • I'll avoid the unintended alliteration in the future. I can't think of a better word for failed, though, without it sounding judgmental.
  • Got the paragraph mark. Months are now spelled out.
Regards, Historical Perspective (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/21st_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Infantry/archive1&oldid=1078785392"