Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of The Cedars

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of the Cedars

[edit]
Nominator(s): Magic♪piano
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's close to, if not at, the A-Class standard. A strange, almost funny, little sequence of events with consequences of unexpected reach... Magic♪piano 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • References comments Support - references concerns addressed. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, the oldest source used information that the modern sources didn't use? That's not common. Should the note you have be smaller or a note? Moved to reduce prominence. If I recall, Stanley was the best modern (post-1950) account, and even he was lacking in details.
    • Locations are needed for the publishers. Done also added missing OCLC numbers
    • "READ BOOKS" should be "Read Books" per MOS:CAPS Done
    • What company published Forgotten Allies? Already there Macmillan!
    • Any page numbers for ref 9? Comment I could, but in some cases (e.g. Smith Vol 1) it literally is the whole book. In the others, it's probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the book. (This is why the note says "great detail".)
    • Life of Joseph Brant-Thayendanegea and The History of the County of Brant, Ontario don't seem to appear in the references? Added refs needed to justify claims of Brant's presence.
  • —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your sharp eyes, I shoulda caught some of these. Magic♪piano 13:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that's what I'm here for! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A really interesting article! A couple of minor thoughts:
    • A couple of places where there is material in brackets where I'd have brought them into the main part of the sentence - e.g. " the garrison's commander (who had gone to Montreal for reinforcements without warning the garrison of the approaching forces)", "Sherburne landed about 100 of his men (the rest, apparently suffering from the aftereffects of smallpox, were left behind) at Quinze-Chênes" - but to be fair, I'm no grammar expert! Reworded to remove need for parens.
    • "break previous Six Nations assurances of neutrality" is it "Six Nations" or "the Six Nations"? (NB: I'm no Six Nations specialist either!) Comment The title of the Iroquois confederacy is often given as the "Six Nations" (or Five, prior to the joining of the Tuscarora, I believe). I have reworded to clarify -- I think I got some commentary on this in the GA review...
    • "carrying Major Sherburne and Forster's second, Lieutenant Parke" - second as in "deputy" or "representative"? Or "second in command"? Changed to "deputy".

Hchc2009 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to best change the parenthetical about Bedel's activities in the lead; I think it needs to be mentioned there, but not prominently in summarizing the action. Thanks for reading! Magic♪piano 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The note about Kingsford's book, mentioned above, is a major red flag. First, a minor point. You say: "Kingsford provides one of the most interesting accounts, apparently using sources that other historians, including recent ones, have not used." "Interesting" is an editorial judgment and should be avoided; better to simply say that he provides the most detailed account.

But the major problem is that Kingsford was an amateur historian whose work was criticized by professional historians of his day, who, according to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, "repeatedly took him to task for failing to meet their standards of comprehensive research". Kingsford wrote just as history was emerging as a profession, with new standards of evidence. Gone were the days when gentleman historians would fill their histories with colorful anecdotes of doubtful provenance. Was Kingsford's account "the most interesting" because he used sources that modern, professional historians would regard as unreliable? I don't know, but it's an issue you should be aware of. —Kevin Myers 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm actually quite aware of Kingsford's limitations, having run into them on other occasions (he's especially problematic when he wanders too far away from Canadian history). Your comment prompted me to reexamine the assertion. The source he mentions (see footnote p. 46) is in fact referenced (usually in the French original), by others; I will modify the comment appropriately. Kingsford's account is almost ten pages long, more thorough than those of Lanctot and Stanley, as well as that of William Nester, a source I looked at but did not cite here. His primary shortcoming is that he doesn't describe the American chain of events leading to the setup of the garrison. If there are significant differences between his and the other accounts, they're relatively minor. (I do have a bias in favor of using web-accessible sources for citation, which is why I tend to cite sources like Smith and Kingsford in preference to more recent ones.) Magic♪piano 13:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article, but would it be possible to add more pictures or diagrams, perhaps a map? There's really nothing between Wooster and Arnold to break up the text. – Joe N 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should probably consider drawing up a schematic map showing the movements and key locations, since that was one of the more confusing things to figure out in this action. I'm not sure there are great photos of the any of the area available (or artwork of more of the participants). Thanks for the support! Magic♪piano 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Can't really comment on content, unfortunately, but here are my comments:
    • images all appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • ext links all work as advertised (no action required);
    • one dab link that needs fixing: [1];
    • In the References section, it is slightly out of alphabetical order: you have a G, followed by a J, followed by another G.
    • Citations # 8 and 30 ["Smith (1907), Vol 2, p. 372"] are the same and could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
    • In the lead, I think that the opening paragraph should mention the parties to the conflict. Even though you have linked American Revolutionary War, for flow I feel it would make sense to add a clause such as "British and American forces" or something like it;
    • In the lead, American, British and Indian could possibly be linked (although not if they are linked when/if you add the clause mentioned above);
    • In the infobox, is it necessary to wikilink POW twice?
    • In the infobox, Iroquois is also linked twice;
    • Can you clarify what version of English is being used? Is it British or American. You have used the British "kilometres", but then the US "center" (see for example in the Background section). The spelling of kilometres might be due to the conversion template, but if you add "|sp=us" to it, that should fix it, I think;
    • In the Prelude section (it appears elsewhere in the article too, e.g Battle at The Cedars section), check the spelling of "Canadien" - is this correct? I think it should be "Canadian", but maybe your spelling means something different that I've missed in my ignorance? — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I addressed most of these. POW is twice linked because I use {{POW}} in those places, which guarantees consistent presentation. "Canadien" is one of those oddities that agenda editors like to mess with. I watch other articles where use of that term and "Canadian" are a frequent editing target. They do mean different things; I have clarified (and linked it) in the first use. Magic♪piano 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on condition that the dab link be fixed. Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns above have been addressed. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_The_Cedars&oldid=1136064771"