# Talk:Otho Holland Williams

I am the creator of this article. 
Anyway, how are you suppose to get pictures on to the article? I found a good one of Williams yesterday, but it didn't show up. I'll be working on the article in the following weeks...--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but this article is littered with inaccuracies and grammatical errors. I am endeavoring to do a major rewrite of this article.  --dashiellx (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this article. I haven't had the time to edit it due to recent family issues. The article looks like B-grade material now from the Start-grade that it used to be. I think that someone needs to review this article again (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

This review is transcluded from Talk:Otho Holland Williams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
There are no disambiguous links. The external links check out fine |here. AWB is down at the moment due to a security change on tehh mediawiki servers so I couldn't check it with AWB.I checked the images and they look ok. Here are some things I saw that do need to be fixed however. Other than these things the article looks pretty good to me so Ill place it on hold although technically it shoudl probably be failed due to the lack of inline citations.

The lede should be expanded. The Lede should completely summerize the article and currently it doesn't. Done
There is an inline cite in the lede. Using inline citations in the lede is usually discouraged because the info should be in the body of the article and cited. Done
There are several sections of info that do not have inline citations. Done
You need to add the age to the infobox Done
You need to add the persondata template since this is a biography Done
In the references you have pg. and it should be p. for single pages and pp. for multiple pages Done
The see also section should come before the references and footnotes per MOS structure Done
The references should sorted by author last name and alphabetical
In sections such as the Battle of Camden. If you have the link in the text, you should not include it as a main link. Done
I also think the quote boxes should be replaced with {{quote Done
Reviewer: Kumioko (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link in the Battle of Camden section, replaced the quote box with {{quote, and put the book references in order. I will do more later. By the way, how do you put references in alphabetical order?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
I added the persondata template, moved the "see also" section, added the age at death to the infobox, moved the reference from the lead section, and expanded the lead section. I still don't know how to arrange the references in alphabetical order and I will search for more references later.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
I changed the references from "pg" to "p". I asked the person who made the unreferenced "Southern Campaign" section what his sources were though he hasn't replied yet.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
On the alphabetical organization of footnotes, I have found several good articles on military people which do not require this: Henry Allingham, Edwin Alderson, John Babcock, and John Baskeyfield. Is this a requirement of good articles?
I am still yet to receive a reply from Dashiellx. If he doesn't respond within the next 2 days I will find my own references.- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Sounds good and good job so far. I will come back in a couple days to check it again. --Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I added references to the "Battle of Camden" section. I will finish referencing the entire "Southern Campaign" section later this week or during this upcoming weekend.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
I added one more reference to the "Battle of Guilford Court House" section. I believe that everything that is in need of further referencing has been referenced. With that complete, all that is left is to organize the footnotes in alphabetical order. I have provided examples above of Good Articles that don't have footnotes organized in that manner. Is this necessary for Good Articles?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

If the editors that took this to GA are still around, I find enough issues with it that I am seriously tempted to list it at WP:GAR.  (This is more a reflection on the reviewer than the editor, and may be a consequence of the April backlog drive sweepstakes.)
My issues:

GAs should be, with only modest prose-related exceptions, be fully cited at least at the paragraph level.  This article is not. Done
The writing is decent enough, but there are several very short (one-sentence) paragraphs.  These should be eliminated by combining into surrounding paragraphs or expansion to at least three sentences.
The article uses myrevolutionarywar.com as a source.  This is not a reliable source, and should be eliminated. Done
I flagged an obvious question: how did Williams make his fortune? Done-removed mention of fortune altogether
I note that most of the sources used are older.  This is not necessarily a problem (my Google-fu does not turn up recent-vintage biographical materials), but it does raise the question of adequacy of sources.  (For example: this source (reprint of a 1910 work) indicates Williams was deputy adjutant to Gates, not mentioned in the article.
Another factual issue, not cited in the article: Lincoln is described as having "taken refuge" in Charleston after Savannah.  While I'm not expert on the details of these actions, Savannah ended in October, Clinton landed troops below Charleston in February.  Presumably Lincoln was there to defend the city, and wasn't cowering for three months.
A number of officers are linked by "first last|title last" (e.g. General Washington).  Individuals ought to be fully named on first reference; remember that not all of your readers are already familiar with these figures.  Done
I fixed a number of MOS issues in copyediting, WP:MOSCAPS and WP:OVERLINK in particular.  There may be more MOS-related issues, I only fixed those that popped out at me.
If someone with the sources is willing to tackle these issues, I'll not send it to WP:GAR right away; I suspect it'll be delisted as it is if I do. Magic♪piano 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
I figured you might still be around -- go for it.  Magic♪piano 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't fully understand what you're suggesting from your comment on the age of sources. While most of them date from before 1910, I don't understand how this would affect their credibility. (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC))
It does not necessarily affect their credibility; perhaps I should rephrase my concern as a lack of more modern sources.  The issue is that all of your sources are old (or at least the ones for which you've listed publication dates -- your bibliography should include original publication date, publisher, and location for all print publications).  Modern approaches to scholarship may bring new details and insights (for example, a recently-discovered journal might provide new details) in the 80 years since your newest source.  The actions he was involved in have all been addressed by "recent" (since 1980, say) scholarship; you should certainly use those sorts of sources to cite the actions here, and look through them for biographic hints. Magic♪piano 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would use more modern sources if I were able to access them fully for free. Since most books that were published from 1930 onwards are not accessible on Google Books due to copyright, I have had to resort to books published before that date.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
I hear that most communities, and many organizations of higher education, have large collections of books from which you can borrow.  (Colleges and universities may not let you borrow books, but where I'm from, their stacks are usually open to the public, so you can go and read the books on site even if you do not have borrowing privileges.)  Your unwillingness or inability to use these resources does not excuse the criticism; it means that you are unable to improve the article beyond a certain point. Magic♪piano 04:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the work you've done is sufficient to strike my objections.  While I feel that modern sources (e.g. works that discuss the Guilford campaign, since he was so involved in it) ought to at least be checked for biographical details (or confirmation of what older sources say), this is not something I would object to at GA.
That said, I'd suggest elaborating on the "race to the Dan" here.  Williams had a critical role in it, and it deserves more than half a sentence. Magic♪piano 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious as to what primary source lists Williams at the battle of King's Mountain?

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Otho Holland Williams/CommentsTalk:Otho Holland Williams/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 02:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)