Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/William Stacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article received a GA-class rating during August 2007, and subsequently underwent a biography peer review here during October-November 2007. The article was submitted for a biography A-class review here during December 2007, but there seems to be a lack of biography A-class reviewers; the article has only received one review after three months. Thank you in advance for your time and effort in reviewing this article. Regards, ColWilliam (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent article! --Eurocopter (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I simply don't get a sense of Stacy being especially notable during the Revolution, and I can't tell how he was unique in the Ohio area. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was rated as "high" on the WikiProject Ohio importance rating scale. Regards, ColWilliam (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well written article, although I would like to know why there are pictures in the bibliography section. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As Tomstar notes, the images in the references and notes sections need to be moved. Also, the large block quote seems a little like overkill, and I'd prefer that there were no sections that ended with quotes. Carom (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment appreciated. Removed images from References and Bibliography sections. De-emphasized second quote to regular size. Thank you, ColWilliam (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as it meets all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nicely written and referenced. This is a very good example of how an article should be written for a notable yet essentially obscure person. I disagree with Mr. Berkowitz's comment that the article doesn't make clear how Stacy "was unique in the Ohio area"; in fact, I think the one weakness of the article is that it probably overstates Stacy's uniqueness (although he obviously led a colorful life). Historians today, influenced by social history, often emphasize the ways that their subject is a product of their time and place, rather than their "uniqueness", which is more of an old-fashioned "great man" approach to biography. So in fact what the article could use is more historical context, i.e. how Stacy's experience compared to that of his contemporaries and reflected trends of his era, rather than more emphasis on his "uniqueness", because Stacy, not being famous or a subject of frequent historical study, was probably not that different from many of his peers. But that's really the realm of professional history writing and beyond what is required here. —Kevin Myers 13:55, 25 March 2008 (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.