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 Ian Rose 06:06, 23 June 2012 [1].

---

Charles Scott (governor)[edit]

Charles Scott (governor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Charles Scott (governor)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently acquired Harry Ward's biography of Scott to bring this article to FA standards. It has just passed a MILHIST A-class review. Most of the biography is his military career, which spanned the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, and the Northwest Indian War. He was then elected governor of Kentucky and died soon after the expiration of his term. I look forward to addressing concerns in a timely fashion, but please note that I will be away from much of my source material the week of May 13–19. I should still have Internet access during that period, however. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is good to go:

• The lead adequately summarizes all of the major sections of the article. Good!
• As far as I can tell, all statements in the lead are covered by citations in the body. Good! (spotchecks not done)
• "The 5th Virginia joined George Washington in New Jersey later in 1776" There are lots and lots of years given in the lead. In this instance, how about changing "in 1776" to "that year" for some variety?
  • No problem with that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "After the war, Scott visited the western frontier (present-day Kentucky) ... He resettled near present-day Versailles, Kentucky" I don't think it's necessary to mention the present-day location twice in consecutive sentences. I suggest dropping "(present-day Kentucky)".
  • Good point. The parenthetical was awkward to begin with. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "St. Clair's main invasion, conducted in late 1791, was a failure." How about changing "in late 1791" to "later that year"?
  • Sure. I really want to use some seasonal descriptors here (e.g. St. Clair's main invasion, conducted in the fall/autumn, was a failure", but I know the MOS advises against that for the benefit of our friends south of the equator! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "the primary concern of his administration were the increased tensions" Subject-verb disagreement. How about "the primary concern ... was the increased tension"?
  • Quite so. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those points, the lead is written quite well. Thanks for putting together such a comprehensive and meticulously-researched article; I imagine it wasn't easy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I hope you will have time to review the rest of the article and register a !vote at some point. And you are right that it wasn't easy for a guy who typically writes political articles to get into the nitty-gritty details of a military career, but it will be a labor of love if it eventually gets me to my goal of a Governors of Kentucky featured topic! :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• AC, you mentioned in your last FAC that you tend not to get any reviewers until the last minute, and also that you never review at FAC ... I don't know if there's a connection, but there might be. There's a simple but vital reviewing task you might want to consider ... see WT:GOCE#FAC, Wikidata. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about that. In fact, I've been considering getting more involved at WP:PR because it takes the whole !vote component out. I tend to have a lot of questions that may or may not have answers in reliable sources as I read through articles. I don't want my noting them at FAC to be interpreted as an unresolved actionable objection by a closing admin. When you register them at PR, they are considered more "things to try and find" or "food for thought". For some reason, I'm more comfortable with that. WRT copyediting, I'm a big proponent of WP:SOFIXIT; it usually takes me just as much time to fix it myself as to note it in a review. I'll take your note under advisement, however. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing at PR is every bit as good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trade you: if you'll do any peer review or FAC review, I'll review this one. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right after we had this conversation, I peer reviewed Big Dan Mine, if that counts. If not, I've been meaning to have a look at bacon ice cream. I also told TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) I'd try to take a look at Juwan Howard, but it's so long, I'm afraid I won't get finished with it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and did the bacon ice cream review for good measure. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, beautiful work. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 35: which Ward?
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• FN 53: missing space
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Dictionary of American Biography bib entry is missing article name, publication name should be italicized rather than in quotes, series name should not be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the article name and italicized the publication name, but now I've lost the series name. Not sure which citation template is most appropriate here, but this one doesn't have enough parameters for everything. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. Here are some things I changed: - Dank (push to talk)

No issues with any of the changes so far. Will be watching to see when my intervention is required. Always appreciate your copyedits. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "18th century American soldier": 18th-century American soldier
• "and joined Josiah Harmar for an expedition against the Indians. After Harmar's failed expedition ...": ... Harmar's Defeat - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't generally think about refs when I'm copyediting, but please don't do this: "Scott spent most of 1759 conducting escort missions and constructing roads and forts.[10] During this time, Virginia's forces were taken from George Washington and put under the control of Colonel William Byrd.[10] In July 1760, Scott was named the fifth captain of a group of Virginia troops that Byrd led on an expedition against the Cherokee in 1760.[10] Scott's exact role in the campaign is not known.[10]". One ref is sufficient to cover all those sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the first time I've received this feedback, but I really prefer to keep citations on every sentence so I know where each one came from in case I (or someone else) moves them later. I don't think it impairs readability nearly as badly as many folks contend. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Crap, I had a bunch of comments here and my computer crashed before I could save it. Could you go through looking for obvious repetition? It's as simple as looking for words that are repeated when they don't need to be, like saying "Scott" 3 times in 2 sentences. Give it a shot, and I'll come back to this later, I'm getting behind. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will try to get to this in a day or two. Been busier than I anticipated lately. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've given this a once over and changed several name repetitions. How does it look now? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a couple of tweaks, otherwise they all look good. - Dank (push to talk)
• Per WP:DASH, replace spaced en-dashes by commas in each sentence where there are no commas. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where, specifically, is this mentioned in WP:DASH? This is the first time I've received this feedback, and I can't find the relevant guideline. To me, the en-dashes sent off a parenthetical better than simple commas. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Use dashes sparingly ... Dashes can clarify the sentence structure when there are already commas or parentheses, or both." Garner's is more nuanced, but I think MOS's advice works better in general for Wikipedians, and specifically in this article. I made the changes .... are there any that don't seem right? - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My impression of the guideline, given the example that accompanied it, was to use them sparingly within the same sentence. Oh well; your changes look fine. I was under the impression that you just wanted me to substitute commas for the dashes in every instance, which I don't think would have worked. The way you've done it, though, restructuring the sentences to avoid the need for the harder pauses indicated by dashes, works for me. Thanks. I'll understand this better if it comes up in other reviews now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Paired dashes don't indicate emphasis when more commas would be a little confusing. In other cases, they generally do indicate emphasis, which you want to avoid if there's nothing that particularly merits emphasis. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some people like to include the year often ... "In February 1780, in March 1780" ... it's not forbidden but most publishers frown on it. You might want to go through removing years where the year is obvious. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think I got dinged for not including the date often enough once and started doing it too often as a result. It felt awkward repeating it so many times as I was writing it. Removed several. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'm not sure what reviewers are looking for here so I'll leave this issue for others. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "the 4th Virginia Brigade stubbornly resisted the advance of General Charles Cornwallis, but were ...": Be consistent; are you saying "the brigade were" in other parts of the article? - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. This was a holdover from when it said "Scott's men" instead of "the 4th Virginia Brigade". Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fort Greeneville": The linked article doesn't show that spelling.
  • That's the spelling in the source. Treaty of Fort Greeneville redirects to Treaty of Fort Greenville, and the article seems to support that they were the same place. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished up. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Supported below looks good thus far, a few small issues:
• Some overlinking: parole, veto, and Great Britain probably don't need to be linked.
  • I think defensible cases can be made for all of these, but I've removed them per your comments. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some repeat linking: Kentucky Court of Appeals, Captain (United States), Colonel (United States), William Woodford, and Ohio River.
  • Meant to go back and look for these and forgot. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• " a group of Virginia troops that Byrd led on [[Anglo-Cherokee War|an expedition]] against the [[Cherokee]] in 1760." I'd try to avoid the easter egg link here.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The use of the serial comma is inconsistent, "Edward, Joseph and Martha." vs "a horse, a firearm, and 500 pounds sterling" Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that was someone else's copyedit. I'm very pro-serial-comma. :) Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As am I, good to see that we're on the same side.
      • My fault. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. Just couldn't figure out for a minute how I'd missed one. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "In June 1787, Shawnee warriors crossed the Ohio River and scalped his son, Samuel, while his father watched helplessly." Why was he helpless while this happened? Is it that he was outarmed and outnumbered? Or was he tied up or something?
  • Best I remember, he was too far away to get to them. I'll double check. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the son was actually in a canoe in the middle of the river when he was killed and scalped; Scott was on the bank. Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Scott was one of 37 men who founded the Kentucky Society for the Promotion of Useful Knowledge in 1787." What did this society do? i.e., what kind of useful knowledge were they concerned with?
  • Primarily agricultural stuff, if I remember correctly. I need to start an article on this one day if I can pull together enough information. I'll confirm my memory and elaborate as best I can. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source doesn't say. I know I've read it somewhere before, but I have no idea where at the moment. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "In June 1790, Harmar and Arthur St. Clair were ordered to lead another expedition against the Indians." Easter egg link here.
  • How would you work in the link to the Harmar Campaign, then? It seems like too valuable a link to leave out, but it seems odd to say "In June 1790, Harmar and Arthur St. Clair were ordered to lead the Harmar Campaign against the Indians." Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, maybe it is better to leave it there to avoid the repetition. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Might want to note the year at the beginning of the St. Clair expedition section. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's a new section, or because the narrative doesn't flow well from section to section? I was hoping the reader would follow the raids of mid-1791 (from the start of the previous section) all the way through to here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could follow it, but I've had reviewers mention long stretches without years before, so I thought I'd bring it up. I moved a mention of the date from the end of the section up to the top, is that ok? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's fine. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some short sentences in the first paragraph of "Later political career", might be worth trying to combine some of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "As the celebrations in honor of Scott's military career continued across Kentucky, he began to consider the possibility of running for governor in 1808." Might want to note the general date of the celebrations here.
  • I'm pretty sure they started at the end of the Northwest Indian War and kept happening periodically until his election as governor and beyond. That's why I used "continued" here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Might want to think about the location of the first paragraph of the governor section, I'm not sure if that's the best way to open the section--I don't feel too strongly about it though.
  • It's easily enough moved. Only hesitation was to keep the image on the left side for better image balance, but that's a trivial concern. Moved. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well researched, well written, impressive article. I have no qualms about supporting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. Will try to have another look at William T. Anderson soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A well written and interesting article with good sources. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi all, can someone just check that image licensing is in order? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Source link for File:4thEarlOfDunmore.jpg appears to be broken
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Josiah_Harmar_by_Raphaelle_Peale.jpeg needs a US PD tag
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:General_Green_Clay.jpg: is the artist known? What is the source of this image?
  • Most likely, it came from here, since this site is linked from Clay's WP article. However, there is no author information available on that site. I can try and contact them about it, but I may or may not get a response. In the meantime, I found another picture of Clay for this article so we don't have to wait. It isn't as good, but it will suffice. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The permissions text on the seal and flag isn't reflected in the licensing tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had this raised before, and frankly, I don't know enough about copyright to sort it out. I'm unwilling to remove the templates from this article because of their relevance. If you have concerns about the images, could you raise them on the image talk page, the template talk page, or at WP:FFD? This issue touches a lot of articles, as you can see here and here. If it's that big of a deal, it needs to be addressed WP-wide, not just by derailing this one nomination. If the images get deleted, they will be removed from the corresponding templates, and it won't be a problem here any longer anyway. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Nikki for your prompt review. I think you raise a very valid point re. the permissions for those emblems, however given that they're in templates I'd agree that the concern can be addressed elsewhere, particularly since any change that occurs will automatically flow to this article and similar ones. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.