Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adamson Tannehill/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2023 [1].

---

Adamson Tannehill

Nominator(s): TfhentzTfhentz (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... Biography of Adamson Tannehill (1750-1820), military officer, politician, civic leader, and farmer. Tannehill had a significant role in the American Revolution as captain and commander of the longest serving rifle regiment of the war. He was an early leading citizen of Pittsburgh and a distinguished Pennsylvania politician who held several local, state, and national appointed and elected offices, notably including one term as a Democratic-Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1813 to 1815 and president of the Pittsburgh branch of the Bank of the United States. He also served on the founding boards of civic and state organizations. He was active in the Pennsylvania state militia, eventually rising to the rank of major general in 1811. Moreover, Tannehill served as brigadier general of United States Volunteers in the War of 1812.Tfhentz (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

• Hi Tfhentz, and welcome back to FAC. Just noting that as it is more than fourteen years since you nominated an article at FAC, and things have changed a bit in the interim, I would like this article to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing n addition to the usual source review before being considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Gog the Mild, Thanks very much for the note. Things have changed a bit, indeed, since I last posted a nomination at FAC! For the better, I must add. I look forward to the spot check you mention and will respond as expeditiously as I can during the process. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Gog the Mild, Could you let me what still needs to be completed to get my FAC, Adamson Tannehill, over the hump and be designated a FA? I've got three supporting reviews, including yours. Spot-check reviewer Jo-Jo Eumerus has approved all my revisions based on his/her comments. Finally, after all the trying that seems appropriate, I cannot get Harrias to finish off his much-appreciated source review. Which leaves me where? Just curious. I appreciate all your help! Tfhentz (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tannehill_1776_commission.tif is mistagged

• File:Fort_Pitt_in_1776.jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Corrected; both image files should be good to go now.Tfhentz (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

When and where were these first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither one has been published before, as far as I know. Both are from Pittsburgh archives from whom I've either gotten permission to use (the 1776 officer's commission) or is specifically described as usable for educational purposes "with authorization from the credited copyright holder" (Fort Pitt drawing). Tfhentz (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay; I see the issue. I cannot find a master list of licensing tags to choose from. The licensing tag I used (published before 1928) was based on advice I got via a Wikipedia query. I was told that what I used was good enough. This is not correct, so if you would please direct me to a list of licensing tags, I'll select the appropriate one and correct the issue. Thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from 54129

A few words, perhaps, could be cut. I don't see any MOS violations or other quick fails of the criteria. Prose review only, as of this timestamp.

• Opening sentence is a mouthful; it could be split without losing anyone.
• "Captain and commander". One's linked, the other not. Reason?
• The lead states that "Tannehill and members of his family" moved to Pittsburgh, while the body only mentions his brother? Suggest just AT's move to Pittsburgh is enough for the lead.
• "served as brigadier general": was he the sole BG?
• You mention "early Pittsburgh" or equivalent four times; if civilian government began in 1771, is "early" perhaps a little subjective?
• I think the MOS enjoins us (blessed if I can find it) to open paragraphs with a surname rather than "He".
• Perhaps link tobacco plantation.
• Early years: that's a shed load of Adamsons and Tennehalls in the same small para. Difficult to see what can be done to it though.
• "earliest years" > youth and upbringing.
• Do family records indicate or do they state?
• Link Contental Arrmy for the first time in the body too.
• Expand "Capt.", "Col.", etc., throughout.
• Link commission.
• "In mid-June the same year (repetition of 1776)
• "at which time" > when
• In November 1776 (because: new para)
• "However, those members of the unit not taken in the battle, including Tannehill" > "The remainder, including Tannehill".
• Lose unnec. words: "continued to serve, participating in the battles of Trenton and Princeton and the Forage War of late 1776 and early 1777" /split sentence > "Around this time they were admin..." per MOS:SEASON.
• "due to the diminishment of their rifle regiment": as in, losses incurred?
• "Tannehill was detached from the Provisional Rifle Corps" > "Tannehill was detached from his corps"
• I assume an honorable discharge? Either way, it's worth linking.
• "1781 reorganization of the Continental Army": it would be nice to clarify if possible that this was due to massive cuts rather than a problem with the regiment itself?
• "to name just a few": editorializing.
• "and owned a tavern"?
• "large buyer": was this an official thing or is it a quote?
• Per MOS:DASH, em-dashes should not be spaced.
• "Green Tree Tavern (and inn) and resided in the" > "Green Tree Tavern and inn, residing in the"
• "In about 1792"; mmm. I think "Around" is usually preferred to "about".
• The bit about his house and political meeting could be clarified; was it the area that " was popular as a local center for political meetings" or his house? In which case, was it already a popular house for these meetings before he moved in? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious!
• In a similar way, are these social meetings in another building at all related? So he's holding political meetings in his house and socials next door?
• You might want to attribute that description of him more precisely; does the source say "generally"? Otherwise, someone will probably ask for a source demonstrating that that is the view of the majority.
• "starting in 1788 by order of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania": suggest that's useful in a footnote; mentioning something's formation 20 years earlier is a redundancy.
• "Soon thereafter during the War of 1812" > "After war broke out in 1812, Tannehill was elected" (and link Wo1812 again—see MOS:DL).
• "...elected brigadier general of a brigade comprising four infantry and rifle regiments of Pennsylvania volunteers in United States (federal) service": repetition of brigade and can condense e.g. "...elected brigadier general commanding four infantry and rifle regiments of Pennsylvania volunteers". (Also, is "United States (federal) service" necessary?)
• How comes his career was so brief in 1812, any ideas?
• Woooah. There we were, nicely moving through his career in neat chronology, and all of a sudden we're back in 1794! :) Some sort of splitting/redivisioning of the sections is probably needed. A one-paragraph section on "War of 1812" might be unpopular, but otherwise, paras 2 and 3 should probably be moved to earlier in the article ("Early public career" to say 1800, and then this section, retitled "Later public career". Perhaps.)

  Enough from me for now, see what you can do with this sectioning business, what you think. @FAC coordinators: might advise also. Interesting feller, though; thanks for writing him up. Serial 16:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for such a thorough review. I followed the vast majority of your comments, deleted unnecessary words in many places (most based on your suggestions), and shortened sentences where the meaning would not be compromised. The idea of splitting into the two sections, "Early public career" and "Later public career," is a good one, and I followed your advice. For the most part now, this keeps things in chronological order. Specific responses to your comments are:

• You mention "early Pittsburgh" or equivalent four times; if civilian government began in 1771, is "early" perhaps a little subjective? Pittsburgh was incorporated as a borough on April 22, 1794. I’m differentiating pre-1794 from post-1794. Good catch, though. I deleted all but one “early” mentions.
• Early years: that's a shed load of Adamsons and Tannehills in the same small para. Difficult to see what can be done to it though. It gets a bit tangled, I know. I revised the text a bit to address this.
• Expand "Capt.", "Col.", etc., throughout. By U.S. military style, abbreviated rank precedes full name, whereas full spelling of rank precedes just the surname.

• Wikipedia's MOS trumps U.S. military style. See MOS:COMMONABBR, which says "Most should be replaced, in regular running text, by unabbreviated expansions...". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have revised all military ranks to full spelling. Thanks for catching this! Tfhentz (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Lose unnec. words: "continued to serve, participating in the battles of Trenton and Princeton and the Forage War of late 1776 and early 1777" /split sentence > "Around this time they were admin..." per MOS:SEASON. Added “in the late spring of 1777” instead to clearly put it in time sequence.
• I assume an honorable discharge? Either way, it's worth linking. Detachment does not involve being discharged from the service, and there is no link to the verb “detached.”
• "and owned a tavern"? No; doesn’t go with “was a tavern owner and vintner.”
• "large buyer": was this an official thing or is it a quote? A quote.
• The bit about his house and political meeting could be clarified; was it the area that " was popular as a local center for political meetings" or his house? In which case, was it already a popular house for these meetings before he moved in? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious! I modified text. I think I fixed it by rephrasing.
• In a similar way, are these social meetings in another building at all related? So he's holding political meetings in his house and socials next door? Yes; that’s what the sources state. Bowery was an open-air pavilion where July 4 celebrations were annual events. House was for political get-togethers.
• "Soon thereafter during the War of 1812" > "After war broke out in 1812, Tannehill was elected" (and link Wo1812 again—see MOS:DL). Done, but I used “After the War of 1812 broke out…”
• How comes his career was so brief in 1812, any ideas? Revised -- because he was in command of volunteers (distinct from regulars and militia), his unit was organized for only a short period—only when it was needed in western front of the war: in PA.

Let me know if you don't see eye-to-eye on these responses. I'll be interested to see how you like the new restructuring of the latter part of the article! Cheers.

Tfhentz (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message, Tfhentz, and I apologise for the tardiness of my reply—apparently, I hadn't watchlisted the page, and combined with the memory of a goldfish...! Anyway, I like what you've done. The page is in manageable chunks, maintaining chronology but clearly demarcating the important areas of his life. That's probably the most tricky part of a biography―to me anyway―and if you don't mind me saying, you dealt with it very well. Your answers to my points are wholly exceptional, by the way; much of my thoughts, apart from general concision, were opinion or suggestion, and there's always the AmEng/BrEng complications too  :)

  (TL;DR) This is a fine piece of work, and I am happy to support it's promotion to featured article status. Cheers! Serial 15:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• Page ranges need to consistently use an ENDASH rather than a hyphen.
  • Done.
• I'm not keen on the way the references are split if you're not using a template format that shortcuts from the short citation to the full citation, it makes it very difficult to find the full citation based on the short one. There are lots of templates that makes this straightforward, but they would change the functionality significantly. I will make it clear that such templates are not a requirement of the criteria.
  • Reorganized references.
• A few of the short citations have "v." notation, but this isn't reflected in the full citation, which I find difficult to rationalise.
  • I added volume numbers in References section to match citations.

Also, dates (years) are used in the citations to differentiate multiple references with the same author/editor. I replaced all "v." designations in the citations with dates/years for consistency with other references. Tfhentz (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Full citations are inconsistent in how the location is formatted, we have, for example, "Pittsburgh", "Norwood, Mass.", "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", while others omit the location completely.
  • Revised for consistency.
• Year ranges in titles need to use ENDASHs, per our MOS, irrespective of how the source material formats them.
  • Done.
• Initials should always be spaced unless there is an exceptional reason not to: "A. B." not "A.B."
  • Done
• We should always use straight quotation marks and apostrophes: " and ' not curved ones “ and ‘.
  • Done.
• Quite a few of the references, particularly the web references, need to make it clear who the author and publisher are, as this isn't always readily evident from the text provided. This needs to be done in a consistent format, which is why most FAs will use citation templates. (But again, the criteria does not require them.)
  • Revised; done.
• Be consistent about title capitalisation: some titles use title case, some use sentence case.
  • Done.
• Ref #54 doesn't provide a specific page number.
  • Revised; done.
• Why does the full citation for "Wright, Robert K. Jr. (1983) link the title to Google books, but none of the others do? Be consistent.
  • Revised.

There's a lot of tidying to be done here, so I'm going to pause before moving onto other stages of the source review. That the article uses a different format to most modern FAs is not an issue, but we need to be able to clearly and obvious find a full citation based on the short citation, and all need to be formatted consistently. Feel free to ping me with any queries. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, I have revised the References in Adamson Tannehill and have followed all your suggestions for revision. I had a bit of trouble reformatting the References for consistency, but I believe I have neatened things up considerably. Please note that several of the web-site and archive citations do not have a publication date, but they are otherwise formatted so that they are consistent with the other publications. See what you think. Thanks very much. Tfhentz (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've seen this, and will follow up when I can. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Roger that. Thanks for the note. Tfhentz (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, Sorry to ping you, but could you possibly take a look at my Sources revisions when you have a chance? I think (hope) you'll find the Sources listings much cleaner and in line with your great suggestions. I've concentrated on consistency this time. Thank you. Tfhentz (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I'm currently holding off pending the spot checks below, as these might result in other source-related changes. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, The spot-check revisions you were waiting for are now completed and approved by Jo-Jo Eumerus, so all is ready for your review of my revisions of the References. I believe this is all that is left before the Corrdinator approves my article for FA status. Thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That looks much better now in terms of consistency. A couple more very minor tweaks:

• Check through all the short references. Most finish with a full-stop, but a few omit it; make sure they're all consistent.

• You have sharp eyes – good catch. I've added periods at the end of selected citations.

• Ref #1 and #57 appear to be the same; it would be easier if only one of the pair was used (using the ref name parameter.) Same for #4, #45 and #70. Might be others.

• I've grouped-up all of the repeated citations.

• "Kellogg, Louise P., 1917, .." The year should be in parentheses, not commas.

• Corrected.

Other than that, I'm relatively happy. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, I have made all the revisions you requested. Thank you for all your help in getting the article in shape! Tfhentz (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, all good now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from RoySmith

Lead

• He is representative of... I don't see anyplace in the body which says that. Is that just your evaluation (i.e WP:OR?)
  • Deleted that sentence.
• Tannehill was among the first volunteers to join... I don't see where it says this in the body.
  • Supported in the main text. See last sentence of “Early years.”
• He achieved the rank of captain This could just be my unfamiliarity with most things military, but later on you say "received the brevet rank of major." Is that just ignored for this purpose?
  • Added text on "brevet rank."
• as commander of the army's longest serving rifle unit of the war. I think we're talking about Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment? That article says "It was the longest serving Continental Army rifle unit of the war.", but it's not in the body of this article, so it needs to be added if the lead is to include that.
  • Deleted this passage.
• Tannehill and members of his family settled in Pittsburgh I see where the body says he settled in Pittsburgh, but no mention of his family.
  • Deleted mention of his family.
• He was an early leading citizen of Pittsburgh and a distinguished Pennsylvania politician The body doesn't say anything about "leading" or "distinguished", at least not using those terms. Who said he was those things?
  • Deleted the two adjectives.
• The overall tenor of the lead is that he was a wonderful person. MOS:LEAD requires a "neutral point of view", so you should also mention his extortion conviction.
  • Added text on extortion.

Early Years

• born to John Tannehill ... and Rachel Adamson I'm curious (and thus assume our readers might also be curious) why his parents didn't have the same last name. Were they not married?
  • "Adamson" is Rachel's maiden name.
• John Tannehill's great-great grandfather... I'm not sure what the official style is, but when I'm talking about multiple members of the same family, I generally use their full name when initially introduced, then just their first name. So, "John's great-great grandfather..." and "Adamson's maternal grandfather..."
  • Revised as suggested.
• No known portraits of Tannehill exist since this section is chock full of Tannehills, better to call them by first name, i.e. "No known portraits of Adamson exist".
  • Added "no known portraits of him exist."

Revolutionary War service

• Tannehill served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, initially as a sergeant in Capt. Thomas Price's Independent Rifle Company[8] (later commanded by Capt. Otho Holland Williams), one of the original ten independent companies of riflemen from the frontier regions of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia authorized by the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. I know FA is fond of long sentences, but I think this one's a mouthfull. Is there some logical way to make this into two sentences? Or, maybe trim some detail? For example, "(later commanded by Capt. Otho Holland Williams)" doesn't tell us anything about Tannehill, so is it necessary here? Maybe just a full stop after "and Virginia" and leave off the rest, for the same reason?
  • Deleted parenthetical phrase in main text and added O.H. Williams info in figure caption where he’s also mentioned.
• Image caption. I know I've been chided in other reviews for wanting sources for image captions (despite FA not requiring them), but I'll go out on a limb here and object to "Tannehill carried the commission throughout the war primarily to prove his officer status if taken prisoner". Lacking a source, that's just speculation as to why he carried it. I would have the caption describe the document, then move the statement about why he carried it into the body with a WP:RS.
  • Deleted this passage.
• newly organized, elite Provisional Rifle Corps who says they were elite? Is that in the cited source?
  • Deleted "elite."
• Tannehill was detached from the rifle corps links to Detachment (military), which talks about a detachment being a unit, not a person. Is this the correct place to link to? Also, this is another of those mouthfull sentences. For example, does it help in understanding Tannehill to know that Rawlings had been part of a prisoner exchange?
  • Deleted link. Split into two sentences. Deleted passage involving Rawlings being part of a prisoner exchange.
• Tannehill advanced to the rank of captain this could be said more simply as "Tannehill was promoted to captain"
  • Done.
• by late 1780 he commanded, drop "he".
  • Done.

Relocation to Pittsburgh

• "large buyer" I personally think the way you have this cited at the end of the sentence is fine, but I believe the MOS wants a citation directly after the quoted term.
  • Done.

Later military and public career

• Tannehill was elected a brigadier general again, maybe just I don't know anything about military stuff, but are you promoted to the lower ranks but elected to brigadier general?
  • As opposed to officers in the regular army, officers in the United States Volunteers (and I believe the militia) were elected by the soldiers. Stated "promoted" in source cited. Seems strange these days, though.
• Tannehill, a Presbyterian, served as a trustee of the First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh I'm not sure you need to explicitly tell us he was a Presbyterian if he was a trustee of a Presbyterian church.
  • Deleted "a Presbyterian."

U.S. House of Representatives

• Although Pittsburgh was a stronghold of the Federalist Party does the cited source say Pittsburge was a "stronghold"?
  • Yes, on p. 13 in the source.
• Tannehill served from March 4, 1813, to March 3, 1815,[69] and as a U.S. Representative, Tannehill cast a total of 322 votes and missed 30 How about "Tannehill served from March 4, 1813, to March 3, 1815,[69], casting 322 votes and missing 30"?
  • Done.
• Link to Democratic-Republican Party the first time it's used.
  • Done.
• receiving 49.5 percent of the vote in his district, no need to say 'in his district". Where else would be be getting votes?
  • Deleted as suggested.

Death

• Adamson and Agness Tannehill had no children, just say "Adamson and Agness had no children" Is it really "Agness" with a double "s"?
  • Done and corrected.

OK, that's it for me. I only read this for prose quality, and most of what I noted is minor. Nice work. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough prose review. All were great suggestions. I'm not sure what you mean by "you need "alt=" for all of your images." Could you please elaborate?

PS, you need "alt=" for all of your images. RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Great review! I think it improved my text a great deal. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Followup

Thank you for the ping on my talk page; my apologies if I was holding this up. Regarding your changes:

• In the lead, the bit about "among the first volunteers", The text in "Early years" says the unit was one of the first, which isn't the same as he was one of the first. I suspect that back in those days, units were formed of people all from one area that joined up all at the same time, but that's WP:OR.

I have shortened the citation to a single page (“p. 275”). On that page, the reference lists Adamson Tannehill as a sergeant in the company and that he enlisted on June 23, 1775, which makes him among the earliest to volunteer. I revised the “Early Years” sentence to “At the age of 25, he was among the first volunteers to enlist in one of the earliest American military units to form…” to indicate that he was among the first to volunteer. Thanks for catching this!

• Rachel Adamson: the phrasing here is odd. You say "born to John Tannehill ... and Rachel Adamson" Either repeat the last name for both: John Tannehill ... and Rachel Adamson Tannehill" or for neither: "John ... and Rachel Adamson Tannehill". Doing one and not the other makes it look like Adamson is Rachel's last name. Oh, wait, this is confusing. They took the wife's maiden name and made that the given name of the son? That's odd. Or maybe that's just how things were done back then? So, when you say Adamson's maternal grandfather I'm not sure if you're referring to Adamson Tannehill or to Rachel Adamson. This needs to be clarified; perhaps my original suggestion was just wrong, given this.

Adamson Tannehill's first name was his mother’s maiden name, and it was also therefore his maternal grandfather’s surname. But I added “Tannehill” to Rachel’s name to clarify things (I hope).

• "Tannehill served in the Continental Army...", this was still kind of wordy; I cut some bits that I didn't think were essential.

Looks good.

• BTW, as a generalization of my "drop he" comment, if you've got a sentence like "subject verb ... and subject verb ...", if it's clear from context that the two subjects are the same person, you can usually drop the second one.

• "elected a brigadier general" the source doesn't say elected. Oddly enough, I don't think the source even makes grammatical sense. It's a bunch of semicolon delimited clauses, but "brigadier general of Pennsylvania Volunteers in the United States service from September 25 to December 31, 1812" doesn't have a verb at all. But in any case, you used "elected" because of your knowledge of how these military units worked. That's WP:OR. So we either need a source saying he was elected, or change the text to say something more generic like "was" or "served as".

You may be looking at the wrong reference. I cite only “Wilson, p. 401” for the “elected a brigadier general” sentence. See top portion of p. 401 in the reference. There it states that “Adamson Tannehill was elected general of the brigade; Jeremiah Snyder and John Purviance were elected colonels of the infantry regiments…” But I changed it to “served as” in the article to avoid confusion. The other reference I'm guessing you looked at (“United States Congress”) with all the semicolons is a bio. from Congress, so I assume that it’s a reliable source.

Ah, yes, I was looking at 58, I should have been looking at 57.

• "Although Pittsburgh was a stronghold..." You're citing a chapter that's 30-something pages long. Please provide more specific citations, i.e. {{rp}} or similar.

Not sure what you’re looking at -- I cite only two pages in the reference (pages 13 and 37). Both pages support the article statement.

Yeah, I may have been looking at the wrong one again, sorry about that. I find this style of referencing confusing because you have to do a double-lookup, but I know WP:FACR says it's acceptable, so I'll just quietly sulk about that.

• • PS, I see two other similar examples that also need more specific citations:
    • Maryland Historical Society (1927), v. 22, pp. 275–283

Fixed to just page 275 in the reference.

• • • Wright, pp. 153-165

Fixed to just page 153 in the reference.

• As for alt=, people who are visually impaired can read wikipedia using software that does text-to-speech translation, i.e. a screen reader. The alt attribute of the image tag provides text to be spoken when an image is encountered. See MOS:ALT. For example, for the infobox image, I'd use an alt text something like Photograph of tombstone. Engraved text reads "Sacred to the memory of / Gen'l ......

Perhaps I’m just stupid, but this revision has got me stumped. I tried a few variations in the figures in my article, with no luck. Would it be possible for you to make the changes for me? I would greatly appreciate it if you would!

I'll come back to address the other things when I have time, but I'll get to this one first. When I said "image tag" I was talking about the <img> HTML tag that ultimately gets generated. But that's not what you see in the wiki editor, so my bad. From the wiki viewpoint, what you're working with is the [[File]] link. I did one as an example: Special:Diff/1179233734. For {{Infobox officeholder}}, there's a "alt" parameter that does the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• A made a few minor edits to clean up some stuff that was just easier to fix than to describe. RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your second look! Tfhentz (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I think we're down to you just need to write alt texts for all the images. I'll also think about the "Early years" section a bit more to see if maybe there's a better way to keep all the people sorted out better. RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have added ALT= text to the three remaining figures and slightly modified the ALT= caption you kindly wrote for me. I am not sure I placed the text in the correct place in the tombstone caption because the caption script is not the same as in the other three captions. If you could check that, please, I'd be grateful. Let me know if all is good now. Thanks very much again for all your insightful help! Tfhentz (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I made some additional copy edits to alt texts. There's no need to repeat the caption in the alt text; the reader has access to both. The alt text is supposed to describe the image itself. Overall, this is a very nice piece of work. I really don't have much interest in military history, yet you've managed to tell a story that kept me engaged. RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, I also note that you've been working on this article for 16 years! That's true devotion; I wish I had the patience to work on a project for that long. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The total duration is 16 years, but there's quite a hiatus within that span of time. I just decided to go for "the big one," i.e., Featured Article status. Tannehill is not a relation of mine; I just found his history fascinating (as a fellow Pennsylvanian). You current reviewers/editors are a great bunch! You've all greatly improved the article. Tfhentz (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot-check

• 4 Don't have access to this, but which edition are you referring to?

I’m referring to the 1903 edition, so I deleted the 2004 reference of Coe to avoid confusion. The two editions say the same thing about this, and other points made in my article. I originally added the later edition only to provide further source information.

• 10 Where does it mention the siege of Boston?

I base this on the fact that Tannehill’s unit was at the Boston siege and that Tannehill was in the unit at that time (but all that is too complicated to cite) – an indirect reference at best, I guess. Therefore, I added Coe (1903), p. 3 as a reference here because she specifies that Tannehill himself was present at the siege. BTW, Her internal reference is a document written by Tannehill’s brother at the time of his death (obituary), not from her 1903-aged memory, so I believe this is a reliable source. The obituary states that he was promoted to third Lieutenancy in the company while lying before Boston.

• 14 Don't have access to this.

The Heth (May 18, 1777) document states Mr. Taunyhill [sic] to rank as First Lieutenant in consequence of a Vacancy that happened on the 15th Nov. [signed] Danl. Morgan Col. 11th Va. Regt. November 15 (1776) is the retroactive date of his salary.

• 16 The source says "probably" detached, not definitively?

It is not stated explicitly as fact, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is. Nevertheless, I added “probably” to the sentence in the article to avoid possible confusion.

• 18 This mentions neither his name nor the purpose of his assignment.

I added Hentz pp. 139–140 to support this.

• 20 Fits, but the date isn't clear - the article says July, the source implies either April or June.

The correct date (July 29, 1779) is specified on the previous page of the reference. So, I added this page (p. 895) to the citation. The April 1, 1778, date represents the date from which his pay was retroactively paid, not his formal date of promotion.

• 21 Don't have access to this.

I didn’t retain a scan of this 1780 return of the regiment, so I deleted it and replaced it with Hentz, p. 141, which does support it.

• 25 Is "brevet" specified somewhere?

No, but it is understood in the reference, but I’m guessing this won’t work for a FAC. Therefore, I deleted this sentence, the source, and a previous mention of it in the article.

• 32 Don't think that this says he was a large landholder?

The reference doesn’t use the words “significant landholder.” However, I felt it necessary to add this as a paraphrase of the quote “large buyer" of land lots because this quoted phrase is a bit awkward. I intended them to be synonymous.

• 37 I presume the rest of this is supported by the other source.

Yes.

• 38 Don't have access to this, although I'll need to check whether this is in the public domain.

Not sure what the issue is – I can access the page via the article/citation link I provide.

• 42 Don't haveagreed to attend access to this, although I'll need to check whether this is in the public domain. Also, I don't think we archive Google Books links.

Okay, per next comment.

• Checked now that the source has been flagged PD, it does match the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• 49 Didn't this happen in the December of the previous year?

Good catch. The Dahlinger citation states the January 1801 date (based on newspaper sources), whereas the other citation specifies “December 20, 1800.” I don’t know which is correct, so I’ve deleted the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania citation.

• 52 I presume the rest of this is supported by the other source.

Yes. In fact, they are redundant, so I deleted the unpublished one of the two citations.

• 58 OK
• 61 Don't have access to this.

I could not find a web link to this book. I have a hard copy, though. It reads For the encouragement of our useful manufactories, the members of the Pittsburgh Tammany Society agreed to attend their next meeting entirely dressed in Homespun. Dated 1812. I cite this passage simply to show that a Pittsburgh Tammany Society existed.

• 63 Don't have access to this, although I'll need to check whether this is in the public domain. Not sure that these primary sources are ideal for the first sentence.

Okay per next comment.

• Checked now that the source has been flagged PD, it does match the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay

• 64 Bit too closely paraphrased from the source, I think.

I respectfully disagree. I do use the words “stronghold” and “prosper” (ideal word choices!), but not much of the rest of the published text. At least I don’t mean to. I’ll rephrase if you insist.

• 71 That doesn't seem to credit Tannehill for the success?

Not specifically, but it does credit the bank for success, which is what I’m stating.

• 72 See my point on 4.

I deleted the 2004 reference of Coe to avoid confusion.

Up front: I'll be asking for page photos or other indications that the source supports the content if it's offline. You can send them per email to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your source review. I'd be glad to send you my offline sources. How do I get your email address? Tfhentz (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably need to enable yours at Special:Preferences first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe copypaste the relevant bits of the text of the source somewhere, say Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adamson Tannehill/archive1? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have enabled my email address, but I don't see how to access yours. I can copy/paste to this FA talk page, however. Tfhentz (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, Thanks for your thorough review of my sources. I have addressed all your comments above. Let me know what you think and if there's anything else you need. Tfhentz (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I still think #71 is a bit too close to SYNTH/OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay; I can fix that, but I'm not sure which part of the statement is in question: "the bank generally prospered under Tannehill's short period of leadership" or he "helped further advance Pittsburgh's business and industry"? Or is it both phrases? Thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's the combination, which implies to a lay reader that he should be credited for this strong performance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I agree, now that I look at it more closely -- hard to be objective after having read the article 1000X! I deleted the whole sentence. I trust all is okay now. Thanks for your review. Tfhentz (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this passes the spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Book ttiles should be in title case.

Done.

• Image caption: "by Mrs. E. C. Gibson". MOS:CREDITS states "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article."

Deleted "by Mrs. E. C. Gibson".

• "eventually rising to the rank of major general in 1811." I am not sure that "eventually" is needed.

Deleted “eventually.”

• Nor "Moreover" in the following sentence.

Deleted "Moreover."

• "starting in 1817". Until?

Added “until his death in 1820”

• Link extortion.

Done.

• "he was among the first volunteers to enlist". Is it known, even roughly, when this was?

I know it to the day, but rephrased to “…, serving from June 1775 until 1781.”

• "This regiment-size force". Is it possible to give - somewhere in this section - what the complement of a regiment of the Continental Army was?

I added “of about 500 men.”

• Should the last sentence of "Early years" not be in "Revolutionary War service"?

I moved the sentence as suggested and rephrased it a bit.

• "He was admitted as an original member of the Society of the Cincinnati in the state of Maryland when it was established in 1783." This does not fit well into a section titled "Revolutionary War service", and is two years after his war service concluded. Perhaps move it to the next section.

I respectfully disagree. Tannehill’s inclusion as an original member of the Society of the Cincinnati is so inextricably linked to his Revolutionary War service that it deserves to be in the “Revolutionary War service” section.

You are allowed to disrespectfully disagree. :-)

• "settled in the frontier area of Fort Pitt (settlement of Pittsburgh)". I struggle to make sense of this. Did he settle in Fort Pitt; in the general area of Fort Pitt, which was on the western frontier; in Pittsburgh? Or something else?

I revised it to “Tannehill settled in frontier Pittsburgh…”

Link frontier? (At first mention.) And Pittsburgh.

Both are now linked at their first mention.

• "engaged in agricultural pursuits". What does this mean?

Revised to “engaged in farming”

• "Green Tree Tavern and inn". Should that be an upper-case I?

In the sources, it is variably called the “Green Tree Tavern” and “Green Tree Inn,” but not called the “Green Tree Tavern and Inn,” but I capitalized “Inn” anyway to avoid confusion.

• " which was popular as a local center for political meetings." Was it already popular for such meetings before Tannehill moved there?

No; Tannehill built Grove Hill. I revised it to “he moved to his new Grove Hill estate, which became popular as a local center for political meetings while owned by Tannehill …”

• ""to hail with joyful hearts the day that gave birth to the liberties and happiness of their country." Known as a "popular man and an astute politician". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

The first quotation is more of an observation, isn’t it? I deleted “Known as a popular man and an astute politician" because this is not the opinion of a contemporary of Tannehill’s.

Ho hum, go on then.

• "Pittsburgh Fire Company". Which did what?

I could not find any further specifics. I assume it was a kind of formal bucket brigade to fight structure fires in the city.

Ah, an American usage. Well, if there is no further detail I suppose you can't even link to fire company.

I linked it to "Fire department."

• "Early public career": in the first paragraph, is there any reason why events are not retailed in chronological order?

The information related in the sentences beginning “In March 1790, Tannehill had unsuccessfully solicited a public appointment…” is more of a secondary thought to the main topic sentence: “Tannehill began public service no later than 1794…” That is why I ordered them that way in the paragraph.

• Link Allegheny County; mention that it was the administrative area which included Pittsburgh.

Done.

• "after being convicted of extortion". Did the court impose any punishment other than his dismissal from office?

Yes, excellent question. He was reprimanded and fined $50, according to the source listed. I added these details to the article.

• "two shillings". I thought that dollars and cents had become the units of currency in 1792.

The source states “two shillings.” In the very early days of the US, especially in remote areas, several types of currency/coinage were commonly used, if made of silver or gold.

• "two of the most unprincipled scoundrels who ever appeared before a Court of Justice" and their "false swearing and vile slander". See above re quotations.

I modified the text to make it clear that these are Tannehill’s words.

• "serving as a lieutenant colonel in the Westmoreland County militia". Any reason why he didn't serve in Allegheny County?

I haven’t been able to determine the reason for this. Because the whole area was so remote, I assume Tannehill served an adjacent county where he was needed.

That's all I have. A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Great observations and suggested revisions! Thanks very much. Tfhentz (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A pleasure to help out. A couple of comebacks above. If I haven't commented against a response it means I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed your comebacks. Again, many thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog, My most sincere appreciation for archiving the sources in the article! Above and beyond. While I've got you, where can I access a master list of all the licensing tags for figures used in articles? I still need to "fix" a couple of my figures. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.