Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)

edit
Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this is a complete view of North Carolina's highest-ranking and most infamous officer in the American Revolutionary War. A surprisingly small amount of literature has been written about Major General Robert Howe, but I'm confident I've read through all major sources, and have plumbed the depths of secondary sources out there on his life. I appreciate all comments, and thank you for taking the time to look this over! Cdtew (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I looked for inconsistencies in presentation:

  • "promoted to the rank of Major General" --> "promoted to the rank of major general" per WP:MILTERMS;
  • Done.
  • "the rank of Brigadier General" --> "the rank of brigadier general" (as above);
  • Done.
  • in the text spaced emdashes are used, where WP:DASH asks for unspaced;
  • I think I've fixed this...replaced spaced emdashes with spaced endashes
  • per the above comment, in places you have also used a spaced endash for the same purpose. These should all be consistent: either all spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.
  • I think this is now consistent. Is there a tool I can use to fix this/check for this easier than by hand?"
  • inconsistent date format: e.g. "Retrieved April 22, 2013" v. "Retrieved 2 May 2013";
  • Fixed. Should all be MDY
  • in the Bibliography: "In Samuel A'Court, Ashe" --> In "Ashe, Samuel A'Court": the first/last parameters in the template are reversed;
  • Done.
  • inconsistent presentation of states: e.g. "Madison, Wisconsin" v. "Raleigh, NC";
  • Now consistent, I believe.
  • the capitalisation of the titles in the Bibliography seems inconsistent. Sometimes title case is used, but then sometimes a mixture of title and sentence case is used;
  • Clark (1906): is this a chapter in the work by Ashe? If so, is there a chapter title and are there page numbers for the chapter that could be added?
  • Done.
  • page numbers for the chapter by Lennon in Watson?
  • Done.
  • "Booklocker.com, Inc" --> "Booklocker.com"
  • Done.
  • Added pages for Rankin, but not for Schaw. Schaw is a contemporary/primary source that was curated by those editors, with little actual commentary. In other words, the whole book is generally Schaw's, with Andrews/Whitaker doing the actual editing as well as some expository writing. Let me know if you still think it needs pages.
  • Thanks for your comments on this one, also, Rupert. My responses to your comments are in italics below each of yours. Let me know if there's anything else you think I need on this. Cdtew (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, I hope it helps. I've just noticed that you have nominated this at FAC, as well as here. It might be best to withdraw this review so you don't have two open at once. Please let me know what you want to do. If you want to close it, I will ask one of the uninvolved Milhist co-ords to do the honours. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed you are right. Please accept my apologies. Not sure what I was thinking (possibly something to do with my review in the peer review for James Moore???) Anyway, I'll self administer an upper cut and have another read through this article today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They all look fine to me! It's amazing how much stuff I miss. I get some sort of blindness to my own work once I've written a large amount, and am almost physically unable to review it for typos. Guess I need to work on that. Thanks much for the review! Cdtew (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, not a full review: - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks for the always-helpful comments! My responses are below yours in italics
Done
  • "Howe was one of only five generals from North Carolina to serve in the Continental Army and was the only one to obtain the rank of major general.": I have a slight preference for: Howe was one of only five generals and the only major general in the Continental Army from North Carolina.
Done, but modified to "Howe was one of only five generals and the only major general in the Continental Army from that state", since North Carolina is before the comma right before this statement.
  • "commanding the Continental Army and Patriot militia forces to defeat in the First Battle of Savannah.": I haven't heard "commanding ... to defeat" before; maybe "commanding ... in their defeat" - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Changed per your suggestion. Didn't even think about the implications when I wrote it.
  • "highlighted primarily by conflict with political and military leaders": "highlighted" is an approving word, but what follows doesn't sound like a strong point of his.
Hrm. I guess highlighted can be approving; done and changed to something more neutral.
  • "Howe fought a duel with Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina which was caused in part by Howe's conflict with South Carolina's state government.": "Cause" is the wrong word here; having a disagreement with a politician doesn't force you to shoot at them. Please see WP:Checklist#because.
Done - consulting the checklist, I chose "spurred", which (having the definition "having given an incentive or encouragement to") seems to fit better.
  • "These confrontations": Which confrontations? Similar duels, or something else?
Clarified by just changing to "Political and personal...", because it's supposed to refer to both his inability to get along with the state governments, as well as the duel.
  • "him being stripped": "his being stripped" is a little more grammatical, but generally, avoid "his being" and "him being" in encyclopedic prose, there's usually a tighter, clearer way to say it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank:Done - I think the best way may be "Continental Congress stripping him..." Cdtew (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing: "both legitimate and illegitimate children": Just "children" works. "illegitimate children" is out of fashion. (Garner's quotes some jurist saying that there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.)
  • "of "Howe's Point", a rice plantation near Barren Inlet, which is today located on the mainland directly across from Figure Eight Island.": Mason's Inlet is on the south side of Figure Eight, where is Barren Inlet? Also, "which" seems to modify "Inlet" here. If Barren Inlet no longer exists, then: "... a rice plantation then near Barren Inlet, but now on the mainland ..."
  • This may be an issue of shifting tides and shifting names -- on Collet's map, Barren inlet is between Rich Inlet (present today) and Broad Inlet (?). So either Masonboro Inlet was known in 1770 as "Broad Inlet", and Mason's Inlet was known as "Barren inlet" (which Collet's map seems to suggest), or several inlets have closed/opened in the meantime. I will change it to make it clear the "which" refers to the plantation, and try to suss out the inlet naming issue.
  • "a currency shortage in the colony which led to many colonists having difficulty in repaying private debts": a currency shortage (You explain the connection to debt-repayment more precisely a couple of sentences later.)
  • Done.
  • I'm sorry, I don't think I'm going to have time to finish the whole thing ... I'm not familiar with the period, it would be tedious (for both of us!) for me to ask all the questions I have. Perhaps someone else will take it from here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely understand, and I thank you for your kind assistance. There's just not enough of us "stone age" military history enthusiasts on wikipedia. Perhaps I'll try targeting a few potential reviewers from the ARW Taskforce (if any are still active). Thank you so much for your kind and productive input! Cdtew (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "he began to drill the local militia, using the unusual combination of drums and fiddles.": I don't know what that means.
  • Replace "' ... '" throughout with " ..."
  • Done
  • I don't pay a lot of attention to image issues, but I'm wondering if the Gadsden image should be in the Gadsden subsection.
  • "attacking Howe's intelligence, ability as a commander, and questioning Howe's legal authority": nonparallel (that is, it doesn't work when expanded: "attacking Howe's intelligence, attacking Howe's ability as a commander, and attacking Howe's questioning Howe's ...") One fix is to change "intelligence, ability" to "intelligence and ability".
  • Done per your suggestion
  • Done yep, about the duel.
  • Possibly, you could omit the bit that starts "During his testimony before a later court martial" ... I think we can assume in every trial that the defendant may claim he wasn't responsible, and others may say that he was. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could eliminate that, but I figure in most criminal trials, while a defendant is expected to deny the charges against him, most people are fascinated by the defendant's reasons for denying it (see: Twinkie defense and Murder of Travis Alexander#Trial. While this isn't nearly as outlandish or sexy, it still gives an inclination that even Howe is admitting he was slightly guilty of poor planning.

Support Comments

  • What was it about his style of command that upset people?
  • The sources don't really comment on this. There's an undercurrent that suggests most historians think he was a pompous, self-important ass, but a lot of that opinion stems from his detractors, so I'm not sure it's prudent to include. Other than that most sources tend to blame it on the typical conflict between southern states' governments antagonism with the Continental establishment. I'll see if I can find some more detail.
  • @Sturmvogel 66: I've scoured the sources, and no source gives me any neutral, verifiable reasons. I think the article is fairly clear in that it describes a lot of concurrent conflicts without going into psychoanalysis. Bennett/Lennon (both North Carolina historians) blame the conflicts on vain local governments; Ranlet blames them on Howe's own vanity. I don't think either opinion is particularly accurate. Cdtew (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • co-conspirator to Benedict Arnold "with" not "to"
  • Done
  • Founding member became an original member of the North Carolina Society
  • Done
  • O'Kelley is possibly self-published, I'm not certain. In this case, it was a remnant before I was able to obtain Bennett and Lennon. I had forgotten about it being self-published, so I'll go through and replace with Bennett/Lennon. It's actually a fairly accurate source, and contains pretty thorough sourcing, but still, rules is rules. Many thanks for your comments, let me know if you have more. Cdtew (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments and support! Sorry for not catching that last typo. Editing from the ipad. Cdtew (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Robert_Howe_(Continental_Army_officer)&oldid=562528794"