![]() | Moses Van Campen was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 3, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moses Van Campen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cdtew ( talk · contribs) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to review; I will have comments here shortly. Cdtew ( talk) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Comments - First, let me give you kudos for working on what is essentially a local history project. I'm a huge proponent of local history on Wikipedia, and believe that, provided WP:GNG is met, local figures, places, and events deserve just as much attention and care as national ones. I'm also a Colonial America editor, and I pursue subjects similar to this on a regular basis from a "meta' standpoint. I always think it's important to think about things from both the forest and tree perspective (for instance, it's important to know and think about what was going on in the Continental Army's campaign against the British concurrently with the events of Van Campen's life, so that you have adequate and well-informed perspective). That being said, I think this article presents you with some unique challenges, mainly involving (a) sourcing, (b) one-sided information (especially re: Native Americans), and (c) the relative importance of his life's events (more on that when I talk about your need to "summarize" more).
So, that's a lot of style stuff, but here's what I see as the bigger problems - Sourcing.
That being said, I know this is a lot. Unfortunately, this article needs a good bit of work to get up to GA. You've got a good start here, but I fear you're a little too reliant on one source, and are having difficulty summarizing this man's life. Articles about generals have been written in far less space; what's important is that you contextualize the subject both for yourself and for the reader, much of which includes not disproportionately going into his every action unless those actions are necessary for the reader to understand.
I'm putting this on hold, but given that I've provided a long laundry list of things, if you're not comfortable that these items can be addressed in the next week (or two weeks, if you need it), let me know and I'll quick-fail it (feel free to renominate if you choose to fail it, once you've made progress with the changes). Note that, even after this list is done, it will require another read-through to see what's left to be done, as right now it's still "under construction" in my mind. Overall the writing style here is good, but this needs substantial refinement to progress up the chain. Cdtew ( talk) 04:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose still needs a thorough read-through and editing, as there are several areas still left unclear. Also, still a number of broken sentences; this needs to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues seen here. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See notes above; particularly you need pages in your citations for this sort of information; in general, pages for book citations are needed as throughout. Additionally, the "Events in the Life" source can't be confirmed as reliable. It's used 8 times, usually to cite uncontroversial statements, but that information should be corroborated. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Still certain information is missing -- was he with the militia or Continental Army? |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article does not go by summary style; there is too much narrative to be encyclopedic. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Although it may still be skewed against the American Indian side of the story, it is minimally neutral. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The image is tagged with a license that's probably correct, but it says that the "author" died in 1851; there's no author listed, however; any information that you have to support it? |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
More sources. -- Jakob ( Scream about the things I've broken) 01:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moses Van Campen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Moses Van Campen was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 3, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moses Van Campen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cdtew ( talk · contribs) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to review; I will have comments here shortly. Cdtew ( talk) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Comments - First, let me give you kudos for working on what is essentially a local history project. I'm a huge proponent of local history on Wikipedia, and believe that, provided WP:GNG is met, local figures, places, and events deserve just as much attention and care as national ones. I'm also a Colonial America editor, and I pursue subjects similar to this on a regular basis from a "meta' standpoint. I always think it's important to think about things from both the forest and tree perspective (for instance, it's important to know and think about what was going on in the Continental Army's campaign against the British concurrently with the events of Van Campen's life, so that you have adequate and well-informed perspective). That being said, I think this article presents you with some unique challenges, mainly involving (a) sourcing, (b) one-sided information (especially re: Native Americans), and (c) the relative importance of his life's events (more on that when I talk about your need to "summarize" more).
So, that's a lot of style stuff, but here's what I see as the bigger problems - Sourcing.
That being said, I know this is a lot. Unfortunately, this article needs a good bit of work to get up to GA. You've got a good start here, but I fear you're a little too reliant on one source, and are having difficulty summarizing this man's life. Articles about generals have been written in far less space; what's important is that you contextualize the subject both for yourself and for the reader, much of which includes not disproportionately going into his every action unless those actions are necessary for the reader to understand.
I'm putting this on hold, but given that I've provided a long laundry list of things, if you're not comfortable that these items can be addressed in the next week (or two weeks, if you need it), let me know and I'll quick-fail it (feel free to renominate if you choose to fail it, once you've made progress with the changes). Note that, even after this list is done, it will require another read-through to see what's left to be done, as right now it's still "under construction" in my mind. Overall the writing style here is good, but this needs substantial refinement to progress up the chain. Cdtew ( talk) 04:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose still needs a thorough read-through and editing, as there are several areas still left unclear. Also, still a number of broken sentences; this needs to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues seen here. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See notes above; particularly you need pages in your citations for this sort of information; in general, pages for book citations are needed as throughout. Additionally, the "Events in the Life" source can't be confirmed as reliable. It's used 8 times, usually to cite uncontroversial statements, but that information should be corroborated. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Still certain information is missing -- was he with the militia or Continental Army? |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article does not go by summary style; there is too much narrative to be encyclopedic. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Although it may still be skewed against the American Indian side of the story, it is minimally neutral. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The image is tagged with a license that's probably correct, but it says that the "author" died in 1851; there's no author listed, however; any information that you have to support it? |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
More sources. -- Jakob ( Scream about the things I've broken) 01:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moses Van Campen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)