Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry/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 Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [1].

22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry[edit]

Featured article candidates/22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry/archive1

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article meets the FA requirements. Would appreciate any comments, help, etc. to get it to FA. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Very interesting article, although I see a few things that may need attention:

~~Please add publisher locations to the book sources, including the website/publisher for citation 67.~~
~~There is no reason to include access dates for books, despite them linking to GoogleBooks.~~
It was involved in the Peninsular Campaign, particularly the Battle of Gaines' Mill during which it suffered its worst casualties (numerically) of the war. -- I'm not sure what "(numerically)" is doing here. Surely causalities are always referred to numerically?
~~Is there a reason Henry Wilson isn't mentioned in the lead, or any of its notable members, for that matter? A more personal feeling may help stand out a bit more.~~
~~"Notable Members": fix the section header capitalization; also, why is this section in bullet format, and not prose? It sticks out like a sore thumb.~~
Speaking of sore thumbs, the "Legacy" section appears to be incomplete. It's only two sentences long, and deals solely with a re-enactment group. Could nothing be said of the various monuments (one of which is pictured in the infobox) or depictions in literature/film? Important books or articles written on the subject? Isn't there anything else to say?

Hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 13:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. Business outside of Wikipedia has prevented me from getting to this as quickly as I would have liked, but I think I have addressed the above concerns. Here's what I've done:

Added publisher locations to book references.
Removed access dates from book references.
Numerically is mentioned as opposed to percentages. I've added a sentence in the lead about the worst casualties (by percentage) being at Gettysburg. The unit was much smaller at Gettysburg, so numerically their casualties there may not seem significant, but in terms of percentages, they were quite severe. I hope this is clear in the lead.
I've added Henry Wilson to the lead.
Notable members was added by another user and it did stick out like a sore thumb, I agree. I have re-vamped it and turned it into prose. Also, see next comment...
In terms of expanding the legacy section, which I agree needed work, it occured to me, as I was working on the "Notable members" section, that their notability came primarily after the war. So it seemed to me that "Notable members" should be moved to the "Legacy" section, which I did. I also added a sub-section on the regimental association.

Hope these changes cover your concerns. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed replies, Historical Perspective. I've struck my comments, as all of my concerns were more than adequately addressed. I haven't read the article in full as of now, so I'm unable to offer my full support, but things look much better. Well done! María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: I noticed when looking at ref 49 that the website refers to a book, Stafford County in the Civil War, by Homer D. Musselman (1995, H.E. Howard Inc., Lynchburg, VA.) Sounds as though it could be relevant; any reason why it was not used? Otherwise, all sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response:That particular reference was used simply to verify the physical location of the regiment's camp during the winter of 1862 to 1863. I didn't explore further references in that regard because I felt the library website's article was sufficient to document their location. Also, I don't have access to a copy of Musselman. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments and some media review: I also found this article well-written and interesting. A few media issues:

The image pages for the images taken from Parker should include full bibliographic info, and possibly link to a Google Book page where the image can be seen.

The image page for the Henry Wilson photo should be updated to have a filled-out {{Information}} template.

I'll defer to others on whether the copyright status of the Gettysburg memorial needs to be established, but the other media appear to me to be in order.

Profile portraits should look into the text, not away from it.

~~Other comments:~~

~~For books that do not have ISBNs, you should provide OCLC numbers (available by looking the book up in Worldcat).~~

~~The two bulleted notables look odd after the descriptions of other notables; please elaborate into prose or remove.~~

-- Magic♪piano 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response:Glad you enjoyed the article. Thanks for the comments. I've done the following:

Added full bibliographic references to the images from the regimental history with links to those pages in Google Books.
Added an information template to the Henry Wilson photo
On the Gettysburg monument, my understanding is that images of memorials in National Parks are public domain. If this is not the case, I'll remove the image.
Fixed the profile photos so they face the text.
Added OCLC numbers.
The two bulleted notables were part of a work in progress. It's fixed now.

Hope these cover your concerns. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Magic♪piano 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

media Images with faces should look into the text, the date the monument was built should be placed on the image description page Fasach Nua (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the profile photos. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - just a couple of comments, which don't affect my support:

The last three paragraphs of the Battle of Gettysburg section are quite short and make a nicely flowing ariticle suddenly choppy. Could any of these be combined in some way?
I was surprised to see how many old (pre-1900) refs were being used, and for a major part of the article's sourcing. I did a quick check on Google and Worldcat to see if there was anything more recent, and couldn't find anything. Since I may have missed something, however, have you checked to see if there were any more recent refs?

Overall, the article flowed really well and I enjoyed reading it. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks very much for your support. I made a few changes to the end of the Gettysburg section. I hope it reads more smoothly now. On sources, I do rely very heavily on the regimental history, it's true. But this is really the only in depth source on the actions of the regiment. To compensate, I have tried to use facts from a good number of more modern sources to provide more general information about the Army of the Potomac, its movements and its battles. And in some cases these sources do provide brief facts specifically pertaining to the 22nd which I have used in the article. I hope this adds a sufficient amount of modern scholarship to supplement the earlier source. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I really liked the presentation of the article and agree with Dana boomer - it was very easy to read. Otherwise, it's comprehensive (I think) and well-written. ceranthor 03:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All i's appear dotted and all t's crossed. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: criterion three concerns (these should be quite minor and the oppose easily stricken):
- ~~File:Vcorpsbadge.png - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Also curious that an insignia used in the American Civil War could rightly have a license (CC) that didn't exist until the 2000s.~~ Эlcobbola _talk 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

The monument was erected in 1885. My limited understanding of image licensing leads me to believe that this date, and perhaps also the fact that it is located on property of the National Park Service, puts the image in the public domain.
The corps badge image I'm not quite sure what to do with. After reviewing WP:IUP, I find that images taken from websites or books should indicate their sources. This image was apparently digitally created by the user who uploaded it and therefore there is no website or book to point to regarding this particular rendering. Would it be sufficient, in the image description, to point to an online book containing a Civil War era version of this insignia as verification that it is in fact what the user says it is? Historical Perspective (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the monument is that old, it's not an issue. It wasn't visually clear whether the monument was contemporary.
A source is "where the image came from ... and information on how this could be verified" (number two under requirments). For self-made images (which this presumably is), that information is name and method of contact for the author (for example, as present in this image, also in a FAC). We just need an explicit declaration. Because the badge image is a derivative of the actual badge, an online book containing a Civil War era version of this insignia would indeed be sufficient support for a PD-US license. Эlcobbola _talk 18:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have the Corps badge image properly sourced now. I've added a summary template to File:Vcorpsbadge.png and included a link, under source, to a 1910 publication depicting the Corps badge. I also added a PD-US license. Let me know whether or not I've done this correctly. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me; thanks. Эlcobbola _talk 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Well-written article.
- "The 22nd had a clear view of both flanks of the Union army and watched the assaults that took place over the course of the day." - could you possibly explain better what the significance of this is?
- "The regiment remained in this position while Pickett's Charge, Lee's unsuccessful attempt to break Union lines, took place well north of the 22nd's position." - this statement is not cited.
- "their three years of service having expired" - did we know they were supposed to serve three years? Some background would be helpful, preferably higher up in the article. Also, did this apply to all the members of the regiment, including the 200 draftees who reinforced them on September 9, 1863?
- Relies very heavily on Parker (1887) and Bowen (1889), the two oldest sources. Were there no comprehensive more modern sources?
Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks. I've made some edits according to your suggestions.

The bit about watching the assaults is to stress that they were actionless and not committing the V Corps was one of McClellan's great failings during that battle. This is described in the sentence that follows. To help stress this a bit more, I added a sentence emphasizing that the V Corps did not take part in the battle.

Thanks, that helps, but my question was more about the phrase "The 22nd had a clear view of both flanks of the Union army" was. Why is this significant? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation for the sentence about Pickett's Charge.
Good point about the draftees. No, it did not apply to them. I added some explanation in that paragraph to reflect this. The 3 year term is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead.

Yes, it's in the lead, but I was suggesting it should be mentioned in the actual article itself - for example, noting at the formation of the regiment that the men were signing up for three years. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the 19th century sources, please read above. I've tried to compensate with information from more modern sources as well. Thanks again, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 14 July 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.