Talk:Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move suggested

Should this page instead of (soldier) be (general)? As that more adequately describes what he was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.68.112.171 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Anon, thank you for your input. It's nominated at GAN right now, but if/when it clears GAN, I plan to move it to Robert Howe (Continental Army officer) to match James Moore (Continental Army officer), its companion article. Cdtew (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You can move it now without disrupting the review if you like; just be sure to move the GA review to the new page as well: "Talk:NEWTITLE/GA1". Up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Clark, I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment, more to follow tonight or tomorrow:

• "the Sons of Liberty in the Wilmington area, which was active in protesting the Stamp Act 1765" -- the "which" is slightly ambiguous here--was the Sons of Liberty or the Wilmington area active in protesting the Act? Perhaps which could be replaced with "a group" or "a region", respectively. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done - Changed to "the Wilmington Sons of Liberty organization". Better? Cdtew (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here's a few more. Overall this seems excellent and ripe for promotion, though I've got a few checks left to do. Thanks for your work on expanding this! As last time, I've done some minor cleanup as I went, so please check to make sure I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

• Look good to me!

• "who refused want to give up" -- should the "want" be cut here? I'm not quite clear what this phrase means.

• Done

• "and intentionally fired above his left shoulder" -- is the "his" here "his own" or "Howe's"?

• Done - supposed to be his own.

• "the South Carolinian and American Gazette" -- if this is a newspaper, its title should probably be italicized.

• Done

• The ISBN for Lefler is displaying as invalid.

• Done - missed a "0"

• Not an issue for GA, but the editor parameter isn't showing for the Whitaker citation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Corrected - Thanks for your comments so far! Cdtew (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor prose points above. Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Arnold and André

@Cdtew: The terminology around these two displays a remarkably pro-revolutionary POV. From the British POV, André was simply doing what he should have as an escaped prisoner, and Arnold was (after initially going over to the revolutionary side) choosing to hono(u)r his original oath to his King. While few on either side held much regard for Arnold afterwards, Andre's actions should not be historically assessed only from the viewpoint of his adversaries. Even Washington thought the court's finding that André was a spy to be harsh. Calling the interaction between the pair a "conspiracy" displays such a POV. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Thanks for your comments - although I must say, I'm a little puzzled. There was an actual conspiracy, at least by the legal meaning of the term, that's borne out by evidence from both sides of the pond. André was intimately involved in Arnold's plans, and was tasked by Clinton with facilitating them. That's the legal definition of conspiracy. That being said, I see that the implication of "conspiracy" is that André had some duty not to do what he did, so I will try to re-word. Let me know what you think. That's the only thing I see, though, that seems even arguably Non-NPOV. Let me know if theres something else that concerns you. I don't think there's anything so "remarkable" about what was in there, though. Cdtew (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - Your reasoning is more faulty for Arnold. I'm not sure that he swore a pre-Revolution oath to the King, but if he did, he committed treason when he swore an oath to the Continental Congress, and then to the U.S. in 1778. He then committed treason (by its legal, objective definition) again when he plotted to deliver West Point to the British. Those aren't POV, they're facts. Cdtew (talk)

Well of course all the British subjects who swore oaths to the Continental Congress knew that they were conspiring to commit treason by doing so. That's pretty much the definition of a revolution. "We must hang together, or..."

Getting back to André, "conspiracy" implies that the plan was to do something unlawful, but where is the illegality in André's planned action? Am I missing some part of the narrative? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's formally a matter of international convention. Espionage was, at the time, internationally punishable by death. The British meted out the same penalty to individuals who were quasi-spies (i.e.: who were merely on intelligence gathering or liaison missions); see Nathan Hale for the most famous instance. André, like Hale, was behind enemy lines, dressed falsely in civilian clothes, and performing an act of espionage at the command of his superior. Being in Patriot territory, he was subject to Patriot law. There's literally no question that he was involved in a conspiracy, but like I said, I took out conspiracy from the article because I didn't want it to imply that he shouldn't have been in a conspiracy. Spies are just conducting warfare by other means, and shouldn't be condemned for such. Cdtew (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, your assertion that André was a prisoner is POV. He donned civilian clothes well prior to his capture by hostile forces. And that was universally considered espionage. Cdtew (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Only Five Generals from his state?

I am reading here that "Howe was one of only five generals, and the only major general, in the Continental Army from that state". The fact that there five Generals from North Carolina may well be true and being the only major general is notable, but the total genernal-count of five seems unremarkably low given this was one of thirteen colonies with a population only a little over the mean at the time. Were there really significantly more than 90 generals or any figure close to it? If not, why the use of the first only? Dainamo (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dainamo: Your point is well-taken. Since I wrote this nearly a year ago, I'm not sure my rationale for using the first "only" - NC was around average for number of generals produced, with more populous states like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia producing more. I will remove in this and the other articles that use the same structure. Cdtew (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my pedancy ;) but my arithmetic was also out by a country mile:.I meant to say significantly more than 65 rather than 90, but the point still rests, thanks. Dainamo (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)