Talk:Siege of Yorktown

Siege of Yorktown

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The entire Articles of capitulation are quoted in the article, without much context for important sections (except for a controversy about article 10). I think a summarised version highlighting the most important aspects, as identified in secondary sources, would be more appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

The Overview was split off from the lead in 2023 by a longtime well experienced user who I presumptively will assume should have realized that putting entire paragraphs without citations into the body of the article would degrade it. But apparently the editor was so focused on cutting the lead that the flaw didn't come to mind. The edit summary shows that the user thought the lead was too long and that was the reason for splitting the "overview" out. Now it seems to me that the lead is too short for a long article. I think the lead likely would not be too long if most of the overview text was restored to it. Also, since the overview material came from the lead, much of the content in that section should be, and probably is, repeated or summarized later in the article with citations. The fix is probably to put the uncited material back into the lead, with any required editing, and to put any remaining material not already in the body into the body with any needed citations and omission of anything that is duplicated but not necessary for the lead.

It seems to me that a summarized version of the articles of capitulation, with citations as needed, as your suggest, is a revision that should be made.

I am confident that I have the sources available in my home library (and via JSTOR if necessary) for any needed citations.

I am preparing to give an hour long presentation on September 9, and have written that I should be able to add needed citations and/or rewrite later sections of P.G.T. Beauregard. I have some coordinator tasks that I have been doing as the months come to a close - and some real life to fit in. So I may not be able to get to this for at least two weeks. That will still be within the usual time to start work on editing an article up for reassessment.

I think this is likely to be an article that would be of interest to other editors who may be able and willing to work on it sooner, although I should get to it in good time if not. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have a copy of Greene's work on the battle published by Savas Beatie on the way. I will take a look here once that arrives. Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

It will be about another week before I can do any work on this. I need to do the work on the P.G.T. Beauregard reassessment first, among a few other Wikipedia and real life tasks. I do consider this of top importance to U.S. (and perhaps even British) military history. Donner60 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

The book I ordered has arrived, and I intend to work on this. But I likewise want to have Beauregard dealt with first. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Okay - so I've nuked the uncited pseudo-lead, leaving a link in the edit summary to this discussion in case it proves controversial. Donner60 - do you think you'd be able to re-expand the lead like you suggested above? If this sticks, then all that will remain is cleaning up some minor uncited text and dealing with the quotation of the articles of surrender. The quotation feels more like a WikiBooks then a Wikipedia thing to me, but I also consider that to be more of a FA issue than a GA issue. Hog Farm _Talk 03:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I should be able to get to it within the next few days. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have rewritten and restored to the lead an edited and somewhat shorter version of the removed material. All of it is supported by citations in the text of the article. I have found the pages in four different books which describe the capitulation document. I will use them to write a summary of the document. Mostly, the sources concentrate on the four of the fourteen articles proposed by Cornwallis and negotiated by officers from each side, with reservation by the American officer, John Laurens, that Washington would reject some of them. Indeed, he did reject the four and compromised to some extent on one. I plan to write up this revision no later than the next few days. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have written a revision of the articles of capitulation section offline. I keep a summary of each article in updated language and specifically point out the changes or explanations required by Washington in five of them as well as the one he rejected. I am adding at least one more source. I am not posting it yet because I want to decide whether to add citations and because there are few small corrections needed in citations, which could affect my potential additional citations. This is about in shape for the GA to kept already. I agree with Hog Farm's remark that the statement of the articles rather than a summary or rewording should not be necessary for the GA, especially in this situation where the length of the article is not a problem. Within the next few days, I should have my changes ready to post. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have made the relatively minor changes, substitution of a reference and addition of references in the Aftermath section. Now, my comment about the article being ready for a conclusion that the article has been sufficiently improved for the GA to be correct can be stated without the "about in shape" proviso. However, I will proceed to review my offline draft of a revised articles of capitulation section as I described in the previous comment and post it with a few days. Donner60 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Z1720, AirshipJungleman29, and Hog Farm: I have substituted a version of the articles of capitulation with some editing, modernized language and additional citations. I think this is now ready for review and for closing with the GA assessment kept. If something else needs to be done, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

Keep - there's a page needed tag yet which isn't ideal, but I think this is fine for GA status. Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have a paperback version of the 1493 book by Mann. I have changed the citation to that edition, made the reference complete and added page numbers. The book wasn't listed in the bibliography. I added it there. I missed that page needed citation. If I didn't have the book, I would have deleted the citation since the sentence/paragraph is supported by another citation. In any event, it is fixed now. Thanks for spotting that. Also pinging @Z1720 and AirshipJungleman29: in case one or both have seen this and are waiting for it to be fixed. Donner60 (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC) Reply