# Talk:Charles Mattocks

[1] - Executive Commissioner of the Maine Board of World's Fair Managers
[2] - Discharged from the army effective 31 October 1898
[3] - Member of the Executive Committee of the Union Soldiers and Sailors as of 1876
[4] - Serves as part of the staff for Frederick Robie
[5] Wife shows up in Congressional Record for pension benefits
[6] Arguing for the defense before SCOTUS.
[7] Cause of death. Have to ctrl f a bit to get to it pp. 44-45
10 April 2018
[8] Not sure how reliable this is though. Seems to be written in an amateurish way.
[9] American Bar Association Obituary
[10] Bowdoin College obituary
[11] bit of a critical review

[12]
[13]

That November 8, while still in Confederate territory, the 1864 presidential election took place.
I'm not totally sure what the particular relevance of this line is. Am I missing something? GMGtalk 18:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Vermont, not sure what's up with the discrepancy, but this source has his dates of services in the House as 1880-1884. GMGtalk 17:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsure, I wasn't the one who added that information. I'll investigate further. Vermont | reply here 17:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Overall I think it's getting to a pretty good place. Commons cat is nice and fleshed out already. I set up the Wikiquote today and did a lot of the particulars on Wikidata too. GMGtalk 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright. I think I'm about done. If there are more sources out there, I'm not finding them. As far as I can tell, I've pretty much reached the end of what I personally have access to. GMGtalk 18:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh. Not sure whats up with the familysearch.org reference. It seems to be broken. GMGtalk 20:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Odd. I'll wait to get the book to do any more significant content additions; when I get it I'll know what to search for in terms of new references. Vermont | reply here 20:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Mattocks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
will start in the next coule of days.  auntieruth (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Serious issues with section on biography--Martha married at the age of 10? I think you mean when Charles was 10, his mother remarried....but it's not clear.  This needs to be rewritten
missing four votes is not almost unanimous.
wasn't it Chamberlain who was promoted from colonel of 17th Maine ?  you should mention this. Also that the 17th Maine was comprised of a lot of men from Bowdoin, including Chamberlain.
generally, the writing needs some work and the mixture of citations, explanatory notes using a letter, and citation styles was confusing.  I'll not fuss at it over Good Article, but if you take this further, you will get some flak.  Best to do a good copy edit; I'll put this on hold until then.  auntieruth (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll look to do a full over copy edit in the next few days. User:Vermont will have to fix some other issues, as some of it is based on sources I don't have access to. As to the mixed numbered references and lettered footnotes, I use those on almost everything I write on, late 19th Century especially, and didn't get no guff about it at FA. Although admittedly it isn't a supremely popular style, it's still permitted as much as the overall waning Harvard citation style is. GMGtalk 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll do what I can to fix issues within the article. Also, Chaimberlain was not in the 17th Maine. He commanded the 20th Maine. I mentioned that 3 other people from Bowdoin joined the 17th, although I'm not sure who. Vermont (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, right re Chamberlain.  I was confused.  No problem on the style, I just found it confusing.   let me know when copy edit is done, and I'll come back. auntieruth (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
btw, love the comment about yards of red tape~  auntieruth (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
From writings about him (and reading his journal), his men respected but hated him, and superior officers adored him. He also saw the army as a sort of organized contest; writing a lot in his journal about what officer will get what position after the one previously holding it died. Thus, it produced quite a few humorous comments about him, one of which we just had to include. Vermont (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The original is signed by the men in the photo. I can not find Mattocks' signature on it.  I also fixed the "Columbia Exposition" section. Collect (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I checked a clearer version located here, and it seems that he either isn’t in the picture, or his signature is the one on the top middle that’s cut in half by a tear in the paper. The first few letters of that look a like the one in his infobox; perhaps he shortened it to just his first name or the tear took part of it. Vermont (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
My problem is that we have no solid reliable source for saying he is in the photo.  "Good Articles" have to check that sort of stuff.  AFAICT, none of the images really look that much like his portrait, but that is not evidence of much. Collect (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)