Wikipedia:Peer review/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1

{{Peer review tools|James Moore (Continental Army officer)}}

:{{PR/heading|James Moore (Continental Army officer)| Wikipedia:Peer review/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1|April 2013}}

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Category:May 2013 peer reviews

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for FAC, but am concerned about it's perhaps unorthodox nature. This figure was a very important military figure in the American Revolution in North Carolina, but did not live long, and not much is written about him in modern scholarship. I believe I've been able to dig up a comprehensive array of sources on his life, yet still there's a lack of information at points (and a lack of illustration at times, including no pictures of the subject himself), and I was hoping to get the community's thoughts. Also looking for issues with structure, citations, etc., and possibly a spot-check.

Thanks, Cdtew (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

;Comments by Ian Rose

Speaking as one of the reviewers for this article at MilHist A-Class, I don't see why this shouldn't be suitable for FAC. Although I'm not an expert in this particular area, it seems logically structured and sufficiently detailed for Featured status (if I happen to review at FAC, I'll obviously recuse myself from delegate duties). I recall mentioning at ACR that I'd make a spotcheck of sources if I had time, owing to subject-matter ignorance, but this may not be required at FAC; it's standard practice for first-time nominees (and periodically for old hands) but I realise now you've been there before and had a spotcheck that didn't reveal major issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments: looks like a well constructed article. I mainly looked at minor presentation issues:

• date format inconsistency: "Retrieved February 5, 2013" v "Retrieved 2009-04-03"

:*Done.

• in the Bibliography, publisher location/abbreviation inconsistency: "Madison, Wisconsin" v. "Greensboro, NC"

:*Done.

• in the Bibliography, the majority of your titles are presented using title case, but the Ashe 1905, Clark 1906 and Wright works do not employ this;

:*Fixed for Ashe and Clark, but not done for Wright, as that was the way the title was presented as published, and given that it's a long descriptive title of the speech he gave, rather than an official title. Let me know if you think this will be a problem

• are there pages numbers that could be added to the Bibliography for the Clark chapter in the Ashe work? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Done.

Thank you for the comments, Rupert! I've added my responses in italics below yours. Let me know if you see anything else! Cdtew (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

:No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)