The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Corydon/archive1

I have put about three weeks into this article, made a few trips to the library, visited the battlesite, and used a book of my own for sourcing. It has passed a GA review, and an A class review from the Military History project. I beleive it is now comprehensive and ready for this process. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A fantastic article. The article is fully referenced, and I'm not asking any questions. I did some copyediting myself, and I find it to be well-written and illustrated. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I believe that this article is appropriate for FA status, but have the following comment:
  • in the References section you have a subsection called "notes", however, just above there is also another section called "Notes". I like the way you've separated the two, but feel that they should have different names to avoid confusion. Perhaps the aside points should remain "Notes" and the actual page number references could be called "Citations"? Just a suggestion. Anyway, good job. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have taken your advice, and changed the page notes to "citations". —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image issues as follow:

• File:John Hunt Morgan.jpg: copyviolation. In short, although it was taken during 1860s, it was never published until 1999 (creation is not publication). By US copyright laws (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/), this means that it is copyrighted until 2047. Use File:The Late Rebel General John Morgan.jpg or File:John Hunt Morgan portrait.jpg.
  • I was under the impression that images were also public domain at 70 years after the creators death. If this image was taken in 1864, and the photragrapher was say 18 at the time, he would have had to lived to age 93 (highly unlikely in those days) for this image to still be protected. And in any case, each year that scenario becomes less plausible. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • US copyright laws are primarily based on year of publication, not death of author. 70 years pma apply only after the first publication is after 2002 or for works created after 1977 but first published with notice during 1978 to 2002. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Alice Dean (1863).jpg: no information of its publishing, author, or date of creation? Is this a photo, a scan of an engraving? Lexington Rifles have not provided the source for this image, and it is doubtful they are the publishers of the image since Riverboat Daves has a worse but wider perspective scan.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where this image is taken from, (I have seen it in books and know it to be accurate) but the same rational would apply as above - since the ship was destroyed in 1863, if the photragpher was 18 at the time the image was taken, he would have had to live to age 94 for this image to remain protected. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, US copyright is concerned mostly with first publication, not year of death. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how to make an SVG, but anyone who does is welcome to convert it, I have the original image in a PSD format and could email it, and it is layered if that helps. Or if someone could tell me how to make it SVG in photoshop, i could do it. And the image of the breakoutmap was taken from a PD image on the commons. I can remove it if you think it is a problem. And in any case, it won't hurt anything to remove the two images. I can get others that are PD, but not of the same relevance to the article. There will be a reenactment next week and I can get some good reenactment photos as well. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced with an SVG. Jappalang (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok I have remove the two images in question and put two different user-taken photos in the article instead. Hope to get some more relevant photos later next week at the reenactment. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are interested in verifiably public images of John Morgan, take a look at commons:Category:John Hunt Morgan. Jappalang (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats great! I didn't about looking there. Thanks. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Query The current paragraph "With the resistance seemingly at an end, Morgan began crossing his troops in the captured steamers.[19] The first company to land moved up the ridge on the north shore and engaged the Legion defenders in a skirmish. Union commanders in Louisville dispatched the tinclad Springfield, down river to stall the crossing" Implies that the Springfield was sent to the crossing in response to the first landing. Considering the speed of such steamers I'm suspicious of this and would suggest that you recheck your source - it might be necessary to split out the paragraph and have one mention of the Springfield when she is sent and another when she arrives. Also I've made some copy edits, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to write that, you are correct, the springfield was dispatched the day before when reports of his attempt to cross first arrived in Louisville. New Albany is though only about a half hour upstream (20 miles) by steam ship from the place of the crossing. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, I appreciate that troop numbers are a moveable feast but the plaque says 2,200, the info box 2,000 and the lead 2,500 cavalry. ϢereSpielChequers 09:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS 20 miles upstream would have been rather more than half an hour for the steamships of the day - that sort of speed wasn't achieved until decades later. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the differences are for several reasons. The primary difference is over losses. he set out with 2500 from Tennessee, by the time he arrived at Brandenburg he was at closer to 2000 - according to both of my significant book sources. There is variance of about 500 men on the confederate side, and variance of about 100 on the union side depending on which sources you use. I went with what was in the two newest book sources (Horwitz and Conway). The figures in Funk matches what is on the plaques, and that book was published in the 60s. The plaque was placed in the 1960s, and I suspect that their information was fully accurate. I could place a note regarding the difference.

In regards to the steam ship speed, the sprinfield was upstream of Brandenburg, meaning it would be traveling downstream to reach it. The Ohio River is pretty swift, i would think you could float that distance in a couple hours. I might not have been clear with that. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses and good luck with the article. ϢereSpielChequers 06:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - looking at the prose now, but it appears to be a bit overlinked throughout. Geographic locations are linked multiple times (ex. Laconia), and some fairly common terms may be linked. Also, you don't have a consistent strategy for linking city/state—sometimes you just write the city and pipe the link, sometimes you write out the city/state. Please check it over. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I have been traveling. I believe I have addressed your concerns. In linking to places, Once the text has made it clear they are in Kentucky, for example, I use only the town name until I need to make it clear they have left Kentucky and are then in another state. it seems repetive to keep adding the state in a string of places, but is neccesary to show the change of state at places. I have also tried to delink multiple linked terms. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to the matter. The article appears to have been promoted yesterday so I will have no further feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.