Something I have a family connection to; I think an interesting piece of Civil War history. I have removed some of what might be considered original research and added inline references. This is probably too obscure to ever be a featured article but I'd like to get it to good article status. Thatcher131 03:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, nothing is too obscure to be a featured article. ;-)
As far as this article goes, it's in very good shape. A few suggestions:
Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who foolishly left such a pejorative ("obscure") on the talk page. Shame on me. ;-(
I'm very fond of this article and wish the earlier photograph was still present (copyright vio?), and do think this article has an important topic and considerable research demonstrated. Tend to agree with most of that Kirill has already said.
Great job on a very interesting subject. Want to know more! BusterD 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is an excellent article and endorse the positive comments and constructive criticism listed above. My only substantive comment would be regarding the assertion about Stanley Karnow. Did his book really "hint" this information or did he provide speculation that could not be corroborated?
My remaining comments are all quite trivial. Normally, I would make changes like this myself, but since you are engaged in this review process, I will leave them to you.
Hal Jespersen 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Something I have a family connection to; I think an interesting piece of Civil War history. I have removed some of what might be considered original research and added inline references. This is probably too obscure to ever be a featured article but I'd like to get it to good article status. Thatcher131 03:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, nothing is too obscure to be a featured article. ;-)
As far as this article goes, it's in very good shape. A few suggestions:
Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who foolishly left such a pejorative ("obscure") on the talk page. Shame on me. ;-(
I'm very fond of this article and wish the earlier photograph was still present (copyright vio?), and do think this article has an important topic and considerable research demonstrated. Tend to agree with most of that Kirill has already said.
Great job on a very interesting subject. Want to know more! BusterD 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is an excellent article and endorse the positive comments and constructive criticism listed above. My only substantive comment would be regarding the assertion about Stanley Karnow. Did his book really "hint" this information or did he provide speculation that could not be corroborated?
My remaining comments are all quite trivial. Normally, I would make changes like this myself, but since you are engaged in this review process, I will leave them to you.
Hal Jespersen 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)