Talk:Battle of Bloody Creek (1711)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I intend to undertake a Good Article review of this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The article is generally well written, with correct spelling and grammar, but the following points need clarification or improvement:

• Generally - (not required for GA) - You frequently use semicolons when a period would be more effective. The change is not required for GA but you might want to reconsider whether some sentences could be improved and made more readable by breaking them into discrete clauses rather than running them on with semicolons.
• (Resolved) - Lead - "The battle was part of an orchestrated attempt by the leaders of New France to weaken the British hold on Annapolis Royal, which they had only captured the previous year and over which they only had a very tenuous hold." - The "they"s in this sentence are ambiguous. They presumably refer to the British but could equally refer to the leaders of New France. Could you try rephrasing.
• (Resolved) - Lead - "The battle, in which an entire party was captured or killed" - It is unclear in what sense "party" is being used here. Does it refer to the entirety of the forces of one combatant, to a leader and their entourage, to a discrete military unit, or some other group?
• (Resolved) - Background - "almost since the French first began settling the area in 1604" - If you know exactly when, it would be better to say that rather than use the vague "almost". (It might read, "since 1607, shortly after the French began settling the area in 1604", for example, or whatever the correct year is.)
• (Resolved) - Background - "the next century" - This is unclear as it could be read to mean either "over the next hundred years" or "a hundred years later". Could you rephrase?
• (Resolved) - Background - "in the Siege of Port Royal (1710)" - I realise that's the name of the article, but it might read better as "in the 1710 Siege of Port Royal" or "in the Siege of Port Royal of 1710"?
• (Resolved) - Background - "This expedition left a garrison of about 450 men, a combination of British marines and New England provincial militia" - This sentence could be read as either "450 men, made up of a combination of" or "450 men plus a combination of". Could you rephrase to clarify?
• (Resolved) - Background - "ordered Antoine Gaulin and, the priest to the loosely allied Indian tribes" - It looks like a word is missing here after "and", possibly the name of the priest? Also you might want to add the denomination of the priest to make it clear he's a missionary rather than a native holy man.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Subject to my concerns under 1a above, the article complies with the manual of style for lead sections.

This article complies with the manual of style for Layout, although I have the following comment:

• (Not required for GA) - The external links may not comply with our external links policy. In particular, History of Nova Scotia, assuming it is a reliable source, would not comply because there is no pressing reason the relevant content cannot be incorporated into the article in a regular fashion.

The article has the following problems with words to watch:

• "Not long before" - When?

• I actually meant "when did they set out, specifically", but I suspect the answer to that from context is that the sources are not clear on this. I'll accordingly pass this.

The manuals of style for fiction and list incorporation do not apply to this article.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All sources are in a dedicated and labelled section.

(b) 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);

All content appears to be attributed to reliable sources through inline citations.

(c) it contains no original research.

There is no evidence of original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The article addresses all areas I would expect from an article of this sort.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article does not venture into inappropriate detail.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

   The article covers all viewpoints that I am aware of in an appropriate and unbiased manner.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   The article does not change rapidly and is not subject to any ongoing dispute that I am aware of.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images appear to be appropriately tagged and licensed.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All images are used appropriately and have suitable captions.

Overview - Once again a well written article. Subject to clearing up the ambiguous phrasings identified under criterion 1 above, I expect to be able to promote this to Good Article. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you believe these concerns have been addressed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Overview 2 - My concerns have been addressed and I now see no problem with promoting to Good Article. Congratulations! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. I think I've addressed your issues, let me know if not. Magic♪piano 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)