Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Cedars/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 SandyGeorgia 13:16, 30 April 2010 [1].

Battle of The Cedars

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously nominated two "battles" that hardly merit the epithet, I present another one. This article is about a set of military maneuvers that I found to be somewhat (sadly) comic when viewed from on high (although I had trouble justifying the inclusion of humor in anything beyond one of the place names, which went through some interesting linguistic changes over time). Lack of communication nets a bunch of prisoners for one side, that are soon after returned; the events are overblown in the press and public discussion, resulting in some diplomatic difficulties later on in the war.

Is it worthy of FA? You be the judge. (It has been through MILHIST ACR.) Magic♪piano 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 20:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - not perfect, but improved enough to merit some support. Specific concerns have been addressed; the prose, while not brilliant, is now of a professional level. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Weak oppose pending a thorough copy-editing. In my opinion, this article does not currently meet the requirement for "brilliant" prose, although it shouldn't take too much work to get it to that level. Other problems: Smith appears twice on the reference list; per the guidelines at WP:LEAD, lead is too long for an article of this size; two-sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided; distinguish between "General" and "Brigadier General", as these are different military ranks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will work on the prose (and enlist others if possible). I've correctly labeled the various generals (at least the first occurrence); Brianboulton has helpfully rewritten the lead. As far as the Smith refs, I'm open to suggestions on the appropriate way to link the online versions of both volumes if there is to be a single bibliographic entry. Magic♪piano 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps have something like "Smith, Justin H (1907). Our Struggle for the Fourteenth Colony, Vols [1] and [2]" where it's the numbers themselves that are linked? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed. Magic♪piano 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you pinged Nikkimaria for a revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support once points above are resolved. Small battle, not many dead, and in Canada. I thought the prose good, if not exactly brilliant. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I can't promise a full copyedit, but I'll do what I can over the next day or so. Meanwhile there are other issues:-
Infobox map: I found this quite hard to follow, and to relate the narrative to it. It is presumably the only free map available; would it be possible to adapt the map by marking key points on it, and explaining these in the caption?
- The deficiencies of the lead map are what prompted me to make the SVG map further down. Would it be better to present a different lead image (either the SVG map or something innocuous like a portrait)? I can also doctor the historic map with colored dots to indicate the key places. (I'm now thinking I should also provide a second SVG map showing the movements after the battles; i.e. the advance and retreat of Forster, the advance of Arnold.) Magic♪piano 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have extended the caption to the lead map to make it more explanatory. That might be enough. However, I have some difficulty reconciling this 1764 map with the SVG maps later in the article. For example, the 1764 map shows two substantial water features - Las Les Deux Montagnes and Lac St Louis - which don't appear on the SVG maps. This may be partly a question of different scales, but the lakes look a bit large to disappear altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think they're needed on the scale of the first map, but I will modify the second map to include them. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the comment, above, that the lead is too long. It is around 300 words - a bit less since I've copyedited it. However, I am quite confused by the wording. These points in particular I can't work out from the lead:-
- Why is the invasion of Quebec termed a "colonial" invasion? The term is not used again in the article.
- What garrison was Butterfield second-in-command of?
- What garrison was Bedel in command of? These last two points are clarified in the text, but the lead has to be clear, too.
- Does the parenthetical note beginning "(who had gone to Montreal...) apply to both Butterfield and Bedel, or to Bedel only?
  - I've recast the parts of the lead that you raise in these points. As presently written, I don't think it's necessary to identify the regiment. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm happy with your lead fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal section
- I was confused here, too, trying to follow the narrative—perhaps there is too much background detail. For example, I read that "the military administration of Montreal passed to General Benedict Arnold", but a little later I find: "When Wooster departed Montreal, he left Moses Hazen, the Canadian commander of the 2nd Canadian Regiment temporarily in command."
  - I've made the sequence more clear, I hope. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Schuyler is linked twice in the section, and doesn't need to be spelled out as "General Philip Schuyler" both times.
  - Fixed. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was the departure of two fur traders significant?
  - Because they participated in the various recruitment expeditions. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but was it known in advance that they would do this? Why did they require "authorisation" to depart? There seems to be some shortage of explanation here. Other than on this point, this section is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Americans had forbidden movements up the river, primarily to prevent "warlike supplies" from reaching the British forces in the forts upriver and on the Great Lakes. I will add a sentence or two on this. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British call to arms
- Clarify who had made the neutrality pledges.
  - Done. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "in this battle" – what battle?
  - Clarified. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in the last two paragraphs, particularly the last, seems of scant relevance. Do we need to know about Brant, who was seemingly uninvolved in the affair (worth a footnote at most, I'd say).
  - I felt that the scope of the British recruiting was worth mentioning, even if it was not successful; hence the paragraph on Stoddard and his activities. I agree that Brant's non-participation is not germane to the action itself, but it does form part of the event's historiography, and deserves some sort of mention. If there was more interesting historiography to document, I'd normally put a section toward the end of the article; with only this item, it's less clear to me what the best way is to present it. I could certainly put it in a footnote. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would recommend putting the Brant paragraph as a footnote. Your intention to cover the scope of British recruiting is covered by the Goddard (not Stoddard) paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Prelude
- Rather than say "bateaux", and force use of a link, it may be better to say "shallow-draft boats, known as bateaux".
- Major Butterfield? He was a lieutenant when we last met him. Quick double-promotion?
- "He returned to Montreal with a report that..." Shouldn't this be "He returned to Montreal with and reported that..."?
- Who is Major Henry Sherburne?
  - All fixed or clarified Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Cedars
- I have wikilinked Canadiens. But...why would a French unit want to help the British? This cuts across my admittedly only half-remembered knowledge of the Revolutionary War.
  - Some French Canadians participated actively on both sides, at levels military leaders on both sides were unhappy with. They were mildly supportive of the Americans at the start of the invasion, and rather unhappy about the occupation toward the end for a variety of reasons. The politics in Quebec at this time was rather complicated, and is really the subject for a whole article of its own. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quinze-Chene
- "Sherburne, who reached Fort Anne, across the Ottawa River from Quinze-Chênes on the May 17, had sent a scout across the river on May 18." This is very clumsy wording and needs a complete rephrase.
  - Indeed, most awkward. I have rephrased. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried out some further copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again for your attention. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: my various concerns have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support once prose points and a few minor issues are resolved (above). I've made a couple of very minor tweaks as I read it, removing some extra spaces, etc. Please feel free to revert if I've messed up the meaning. My comments are addressed. I also added the See also (instead of monument), simply linking to the battle monument. I like this article. While the prose isn't brilliant, it also isn't confusing.I should learn something from this.I should learn something from this. The article is well assembled, covers a range of literature on the subject, from the early discussions to more or less present day. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of "colonial" invasion would be the United Colonies invasion. United Colonies=colonial. I've added a piped link there.

I've changed this to Continental Army, since United Colonies is a dab link. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reliable sources. Seem okay. I particularly like the way the older and newer discussions of this battle have been woven together in the article.
- cites are consistent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I usually try to mix sources available online (which include old books, and can be more readily checked by reviewers) with sources from my area libraries that may or may not be available (even in limited access) online. The mix is to demonstrate that modern sources cover and (to the extent used) confirm what the older sources say. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more comments

w~~hich took plac~~e.... probably should be that took place, but you don't really need it anyway.
- Indeed; I have have removed.
At the end of Montreal section, you describe the fortification of the Cedars. At the end of the following paragraph in the next section, you have a sentence (same source) that describes fortifying the Cedars.
- Well, there is a chicken-egg problem here. I felt it best to present all of the situation in Montreal before going into the British activities, but how the various actions were coordinated ought to be shown. While there is evidence of American suspicions as early as early March of British activity, they appear to begin before Lorimier's departure. Presumably the reports of his activities are on a stronger foundation than earlier reports (or his reputation was known to Hazen in a way it would not have been known to Wooster), but this is not clear from the sources. Magic♪piano 12:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do you mean Canadiens or Canadians under Jean-Baptiste Testard de Montigny (I italicized Canadiens as a foreign word)~~. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Canadien is linked in the Prelude. My assumption (which Canadians may freely correct) is that the word is an acceptable Canadian English usage to describe French-speaking Canadians. (See also my comments in the ACR, where the term was also briefly discussed.) Magic♪piano 12:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The location of the battle referred to as "the Cedars" (article title), "The Cedars" (first paragraph of lead), and "Les Cèdres" (infobox). Pick one and stick with it for consistency. Is there any particular reason Les Cèdres isn't used in the article title? Surely proper nouns shouldn't be translated? Nev1 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly the Canadian way, surely? Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that inconsistency is the Canadian way? (-:

I will standardize the terminology on "The Cedars" (with capital The), since that seems to be the appropriate English spelling. This will entail moving the article... Magic♪piano 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Done Magic♪piano 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, all of the supports entered are conditional; please ping all reviewers for a revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
- " The skirmishes, which involved limited combat," → Uh, this is the "Battle of the Cedars". What kind of military skirmishes in wars don't include fighting people? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some battles involve lots of combat, some only a little. This would be an instance of the latter and not the former. Magic♪piano 00:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this article when it first came to FAC and had a few concerns, but see they have been addressed. I find it well wrote, well references, well illustrated, and in compliance with the MOS. You may consider adding the American Revolutionary War Campaign template in the aftermath section, so a reader could easily connect with other theaters of the war. A portal link to Portal:American Revolutionary War would also be useful in the see also section. Great work! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Are you referring to {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War}} (I'm unaware of a navbox with the content you describe.)? This template is normally only placed on ARW campaign articles, and not those of individual actions. (For example, it's in Invasion of Canada (1775), the campaign article covering this battle.) As far as portal links, I recall guidance at one point that portal pointers weren't welcome in mainspace. I've been unable to locate any specific guidance one way or the other, and the presence or absence of them in mainspace pages appears quite haphazard to me. (I have no objection to placing a portal link; I'm happy to defer to guidance on this point.) Magic♪piano 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that campaign box was the one I was referring too. (I am surprised there is not a broader ARW template made, that could be useful navigation aid) I don't think there is a specific guideline on portal links, but they are common, and usually in the see also section. I will leave its inclusion to your discretion. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have the campaign's campaignboxI suppose something along the lines of {{American Civil War}} might be nice for the ARW, but it doesn't currently exist. (The level of activity on ARW-related things in general seems to be to fairly modest.) Magic♪piano 18:58, 28 April 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.