Talk:Alanson Merwin Randol

message: I hope I am doing this correctly, and sincerely apologize if I am not. This article was formerly classified as a bio stub and I have since made significant changes to its content and citations. I don't know how to flag it for reevaluation, other than this tag .
Thanks Radar488 (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day Radar488, you can list any article you have worked on at WP:MHAR for re-assessment. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions made 

message: Good work on the article so far. I have some notes that will hopefully help improve the article. I would change the prose to a more encyclopedic style instead of the sentence saying a date and event. Not all the events seem notable and it makes the article difficult. The guild of copy editors could be able to help. Also note, WPMILHIST requires a source at the end of every paragraph to consider it a "B-Class" article. The way the current article is written, many paragraphs are missing citations. If you want to bring this up to GA status I'd look for better sources if they exist. The Carroll family blog is probably not the most reliable. --Molestash (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Notes 

message: I have conducted extensive research on the subject of this article and authored a secondary document on Randol's battery at the Battle of Glendale in 1862, published online in the form of a WordPress blog.
The material is heavily-sourced (though original footnote citations were not included for publication) and bibliography of primary and secondary documents is attached--including attribution of Randol's wartime letters.
Not wishing to run afoul of the citation and self-publication guidelines, I would appreciate moderator feedback on whether it can be appropriately utilized as an external link:
https://historyradar.wordpress.com/blog/stirring-the-blood-of-friend-and-foe-to-admiration/
Radar488 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link validity query 

message: User:GELongstreet Hello, I appreciate the attention to the article and do not mean to be argumentative in the least. Nevertheless, I believe I am somewhat confused about the standard for listing highest officer rank attained. I was of the understanding (potentially incorrectly) that the infobox reflects the highest rank achieved in 1.) Regular Army service, and 2.) Brevet/Volunteer commission rank. If that is the case, I am unsure why A.M. Randol would be listed as holding the rank of a colonel-- it is true that he attained the rank of colonel while serving as the commander of the 2nd NY Volunteer Cavalry, but I understand it to be a commission as commander of volunteers for the State of New York while he still held a Regular Army commission of captain of the 1st Artillery. By the end of the war, he achieved the rank of Brevet Brigadier General of Volunteers, but his highest rank in the Regular Army service was major, awarded in 1882. He was frequently referred to as "Colonel Randol" in later life, as early as 1865 while posted to Fort Brown, TX--but he never again held a Regular Army rank higher than major. Respectfully Radar488 (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey. The rank section is for the highest rank achieved, which in this case happens to be the volunteer rank. Further ranks to differentiate between things like volunteer, regular, brevet, wartime or local commissions in the same services can of course be added but only make sense as addition to that, not as substitute. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Thank you. Radar488 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular Army Rank 

message: This article was recently submitted for evaluation against Good Article criteria and failed. With few exceptions, I have been the sole contributor to this article for the past two years; it was previously a stub article of about two paragraphs.  Nearly the entirety of the article in its present form is my contribution.  While the content of the article is researched and appropriately sourced by an academic standard, it does not fall within the scope of Wikipedia's criteria: the secondary sources required did not exist to source them as needed, so I did the research and created them myself.  I had my cited articles peer-reviewed by a university professor of history with a PhD, formerly my academic editor when we worked together on a Second World War memorial for the state of Oregon. But by the "reliable sources" standard of Wikipedia, nothing I write and publish myself can be utilized as a "reliable source." The good article evaluation was auto-failed, and my site metrics reflect that only one link was accessed one time during the brief review process.  I would have hoped that an evaluation of the links provided would show that the four-part article, while self-published, is appropriately weighted and well-sourced, but that was not the case.
As for the primary documents referred to as "nineteenth-century sources where it's not clear if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", they were almost exclusively written by contemporary artillerists and officers who were present during the events described. If they do not meet the requirements for "reliable sources", then I do not know what anyone could find to meet that standard.  
I don't think there is anything else I can do or add at this point. I was able to have the article evaluated to B-class, but that's as far as I think it can go.  The secondary sources do not exist; the primary sources are not acceptable; and I cannot create the necessary secondary sources.  So I suppose I will just leave it here, as it is. Radar488 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article status