Talk:William Henry Harrison Seeley

William Henry Harrison Seeley is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by CommissarDoggo^Talk? at 19:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: First American recipient of the Victoria Cross

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.

Military history: Biography / Maritime / British / European / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

This article was created or added to during the Victoria Cross Reference Migration. It may contain material that was used with permission from victoriacross.net.

VC gazetted?[edit]

I found the Captain's report of the action, and the casualty report; but was unable to find any record of the VC award or presentation in the London Gazette. Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Henry Harrison Seeley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: CommissarDoggo (talk · contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your contributions. I think with a little bit of work this article can make GA.

As a side note I saw you had some Russian proficency and thought you might enjoy my recent article Zemstvo.

Now let's get to it

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"By the 1850s, he was either a longshoreman or dock labourer." In my mind longshoreman is a type of dock labourer so you can just say that?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Removed comment I had accidently copy pasted from another review Czarking0 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is not much detail for the Chinese medal. The article seems to not even cover what it was for.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think this needs some work. The background section goes into far too much detail. 4-5 sentences is all that should be given not its own section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments[edit]

Ok, looking through the review I'll go through what you've added.

1a. I was completely unaware of that, I've now sorted that issue.

Done

2d. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this one, when I was fixing 1a I searched for certain words included in your quote and couldn't find any mention of that, could you point out where in the article I used that?

My apologies, I meant to leave this comment on a different review. Done

3a. I actually remember searching for more information on this and didn't find anything about it, nor could I figure out what version of the China medal he would have received, so the mention will simply have to be removed.

Why removed? I thought the quote was notable but if that is all the info you can find I think you can leave it as is.

3b. I can cut this down, yes, and will get to that at some point today. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 05:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've sorted out 1a, removed the mention of the China medal as per 3a and have cut down the Background section as per 3b. As stated prior, I will need extra clarification for 2d as I'm now certain that there is nowhere in the article where that text is mentioned @Czarking0. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responded Czarking0 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify on the China medal, the quote will remain there, I've just removed the part prior to the quote where the medal is mentioned. There were two renditions of a medal for service in China, one for service during the First Opium War and another for service during the Boxer Rebellion.

He could well have been mentioning a specific award he won for conduct during the conflict or it could have been a wider conflict medal, but I'd simply rather have that specificity. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czarking0 Tagging as a reminder. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstood but I think I am waiting on you to edit the Background section? Are you expecting some response from me? Czarking0 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to the background section. I've already cut it down a decent amount compared to what it was. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to look through it now, I've finished faffing about with it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section below about this Czarking0 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the Background[edit]

My suggestions:

"Daimyo Mōri Takachika of the Chōshū Clan supported the emperor,[3] declaring that after the 10th day of the 5th month (according to the traditional Japanese calendar), all foreign ships traversing the Straits of Shimonoseki were to be fired upon without warning. "

Change to "Foreign ships were banned from crossing the Straights of Shimonoseki after (actual date here)

"Following the deadline, several European ships were attacked. On June 25, the US merchant steamer SS Pembroke was attacked, suffering minor damage.[8][9][10][11] The French aviso Kien Chan was attacked the next day, being hit 18 times by shore batteries, suffering four casualties and a damaged engine.[9][11][12] On July 11, despite receiving a warning from the crew of the Kien Chan, the 16-gun Dutch warship Medusa sailed into the straits. The Medusa was fired upon by shore batteries and two vessels and, in the following dash through the straits, was hit 31 times, leaving four dead and five wounded.[9][12]"

Change to "Following the deadline, several European ships were attacked while attempting to cross the straights. This resulted in the death of French and Dutch sailors"

Czarking0 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a specific date from a source already on the page and reduced this segment.
I've condensed this segment further, but I'd like to avoid reducing it to the suggested degree if possible.

CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok why is that? My thought is that there is already a page on the battle itself. The background here should cover the minimum that is needed to understand the notability of Seeley. To me the specific vessels damages and the extent of their damage is irrelevant to Seeley's actions. Czarking0 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thought process is that all of it is relevant background to how Seeley came to be involved. Without those attacks on foreign shipping, the retaliatory strikes that they caused and the umming and ahing by Takachika and the Choshu, that international squadron would never have been sent and Seeley would likely have been relegated to a personnel manifest.

It also explains why each individual navy sent what they did to take part in the squadron. The US was limited to a single ship because of the ongoing civil war and the French were tied up in Mexico so could only send 3 ships, but the Dutch sent a decent contingent, including the Medusa, as did the British due to being a part of the treaty and the destruction of property/potential loss of trade and ships due to the closure. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 09:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think there is some middle ground here. For your first paragraph I think you have a good point and should keep the parts about Takachika and the Choshu.

For your second, I think your objective "explain why each individual navy sent what they did to take part in the squadron" is notable and relevant. However, the names of the ships and the extent of the damage did not prove that point to me. I simply read it as a notable accounting of the damage. Something along the lines of "the US sent one vessel and the French sent three each vessel took significant damage and several sailors died. The British and Dutch navies sent larger contingents in response to treaty obligations". Obviously that needs to be cleaned up a but and sources cited, but I think you get the idea? Czarking0 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about that, the most recent edit? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]