Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Trenton/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [1].

Battle of Trenton[edit]

Nominator: Red4tribe (talk)
previous FAC (23:30, 19 July 2008)


I am nominating this article to become an FA again.Red4tribe (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: as per previous concerns, the "References" section is still a mess. I see missing publisher information, inconsistent punctuation, unnecessary page counts, and Institution, Chautauqua The Chautauquan 1892 still baffles me. Please see WP:CITE#HOW for examples of citation styles. María (habla conmigo) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added all of the missing information I was able to garner, specifically ISBNs, except for Stanhope's. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on images
  • Could we possibly find a site whose copy of this painting remotely resembles the one we have? :) Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Battle-of-Trenton.jpg - Please add as much descriptive information to this file as possible. What is the map of? Where did it come from exactly? Did it come from the book to which the link takes us eventually? Do we know who the author is?
  • Is this map from this book? It looks like it is. If so, that information should be included on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the source does not work. Awadewit (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:IMAGES advising staggering images so that they do not end up entirely on the left- or right-hand side of an article.

These issues should not take long to resolve. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the images and added cite templates to the references. Red4tribe (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article is still in an unclosed peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now closed. Red4tribe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm baffled by "Douglas, Hatch p. 1152" and similar footnotes. I see the Hatch book, but what does Douglas mean? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Book search reveals that Douglas is the other author of the Hatch book. Clearly, all of the necessary information is not provided in the references section for this and other books.
An even more perplexing question: why is the Hatch book even cited at all? It appears to be a collection of tidbits about things that happened in US history on certain days, and yet it's used here for a single citation for Hessian troop activities the night of Washington's crossing! I suggest getting rid of this all other tertiary sources (e.g. the Elson book) and stick to the scholars writing specifically about this battle, of which there are no shortage for this topic. The Pulitzer Prize winning book by Fischer, which should be the definitive source for this article, is barely cited here. —Kevin Myers 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunetly, I do not have a copy of the Fischer book(and I have viewed my max pages on Amazon and Google). However, if you do, I would appreciate it if you could replace some of the other references, such as Hatch, with Fischer. On another note, the images are fixed. Red4tribe (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too was surprised that Fischer's (published 2004) Washington's Crossing was not referenced more. Especially since most of the article agreed with what is in Fischer's book, which I just finished reading the other day. However, I still think that this is an outstanding article on the crossing and the battle and have left a comment to that effect on the article's discussion page. I would like to help edit the article, but unfortunately I find my time taken up editing entomology-related articles and the ghastly TV series North and South versions of some of the Civil War articles. :-) Fasulo (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - the article is very good [OT] i see there is a current translation on it.wiki of this article, thanks to the anonymous user that is workin' :) [/OT]--Mojska 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I appreciate the work done here, but there are some issues.
  • Nominator says he doesn't have full access to Fischer's Washington's Crossing. This is a problem. Perhaps he can get ahold of one at his local library? Fischer makes some important arguments that need to be addressed in the article, such as:
  • He argues that the idea that George Washington's victory at Trenton revived the Revolution is a folk tale. Instead, says Fischer, the revival began earlier, with the publication of Thomas Paine's The American Crisis, and New Jersey's resistance to the harsh British and Hessian occupation. The article currently alludes to this with a mention of the otherwise unexplained "South Jersey Rising".
  • Fischer suggests that the Americans probably suffered more fatalities than the Hessians, but that these were from illness resulting from the harsh weather and went unrecorded. Fischer's casualty figures otherwise also disagree with those given in the article.
  • No mention is made in the article of the myth that the Hessians were too drunk to offer a proper resistance. This is a popular misconception, still often repeated, and should be mentioned (and discounted) in the article.
  • The claim that Frederick the Great praised Washington for the battle is sourced to a century-old general history. My guess is that the claim is apocryphal and thus not mentioned in modern histories. Need additional, modern sourcing here.
  • It would be nice if Edward Lengel's important 2005 book General George Washington was consulted for the article.

That's all I have right now. If the article does not get promoted this time around, you might try taking it through the WP:MILHIST system, getting a peer review and then certified as A-class, before resubmitting it here. Good luck! —Kevin Myers 16:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I just ordered General George Washington by Lengel last week, and recieved it two days ago. I will begin to cite that, and try to get my hands on the Fischer book sometime soon. The problem is with the casualties, that I have found so many different numbers, I decided to use the one that split it right down the middle. The American casualties are generally agreed upon, but not the Hessians. Examples.
  • 1776 by David McCullough says 21 Hessians killed, 90 wounded, 900 captured
  • General George Washington by Edward Lengel says 22 killed, 84 wounded, 893 captured
  • How America Fought Its Wars by Victor Brooks says 25 killed, 90 wounded and 920 captured, which is what is currently cited.
  • Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution by Theodore P. Savas And J. David Dameron disagrees with the Americans casualties as well, and is off quite a bit from what I normally see with the Hessians, which makes me wonder if it is accurate. It says 4 Americans killed and 8 wounded. It also says 40 Hessians killed, 66 wounded, and 918 captured.
  • For what its worth, the History Channel says 23 killed.

As you can see there is quite a bit of disagreement. Red4tribe (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the casualties, that I have found so many different numbers, I decided to use the one that split it right down the middle. This is problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are various tallies for casualties, it should be noted as such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's already done so. This is a resolved issue, I believe. —Kevin Myers 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fischer gives 23, 83, and 896. (p. 254) These are very close to McCullough and Lengel, which with Fischer are your most scholarly sources (the others are presumably tertiary sources whose authors did not dig through the primary sources). Casualty figures from almost all wars should be taken with a grain of salt, but these are unusually close to agreement. If I were you, I'd cite Lengel or Fischer, and then mention in your footnote that sources vary a bit on the exact numbers. —Kevin Myers 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cited Fischer there, and I also added some information from Lengel. Red4tribe (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of the Fischer book. Red4tribe (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I've struck through some of my observations above; others remain. A couple more things:
  • Be sure to spell Fischer's name correctly.
  • You claim that many men drowned in the crossing. Check your source again.
  • A good copyedit is needed. Everytime I look at the article, I notice a few small errors.
—Kevin Myers 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work overall. I've continued to strike through comments. There are still some issues:
  • "South Jersey Rising" is used as a proper noun with no further explanation. Maybe replace it with "resistance in New Jersey"?
  • The alleged Frederick the Great comment is in the first paragraph of the article, as if it's one of the most important facts readers should know about the battle, and yet it's cited to the least credible source in your references. Of the books by Stryker, Fischer, Lengel, and Ketchum, which ones mention this comment by Frederick?
  • In an offhand clause, you mention Fischer's argument that it's a myth that this battle revived the Revolution, and then dismiss it entirely with "Despite this argument, morale in the army and among the civilian population skyrocketed." And this is cited to an earlier, tertiary source. Are you suggesting that Fischer got it wrong?
  • The book by Stryker, for many years the standard source for this battle, is listed in "References" but is not cited in the notes. —Kevin Myers 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see a "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no content must have a name" under the Hessian moves section. This needs to be adressed before this article can be an FA. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 12:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is fixed.-Red4tribe (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Moni3
  • I don't review military history articles often, so I think I'll read this one again before I decide to support or oppose. However, I found it easy to read and engaging, although I did find some very basic copy editing issues in it. I fixed a few of them.
  • The rumor that the Hessians were drunk the day after Christmas is quite widespread. I would feel much more comfortable if that part of the article is dispelled by more than one historian. The myth/story is evidence itself that histories are tainted with tales and points of view. Multiple points of view on this would be appropriate. Further, calling it a myth should be in the words of an historian, not the article itself.
  • Some of your citations are duplicates. Fisher p. 232, and Fisher p. 246, for example, should be ref name'd.
  • I'll check back in again on the article tomorrow. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Trenton/archive2&oldid=1078786423"