Talk:Battle of Bunker Hill/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Colonists reinforce…, P1, S1: Who are Joseph Warren and Seth Pomeroy and why are they notable? Some context is needed. Fixed
   • Colonists reinforce…, P1, S4: Is 200 the total of the New Hampshire regiments or were there 200 in each? Fixed
   • Notable participants, P2, last S: How about a mention of or link to the Melville novel? Done.
     • I see now that Israel Potter is actually the link to the book. I've change the location of link so that it's clear it's about the book. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
   • The section titles under in the "References" section are misleading: What are labeled as Primary sources seem to actually be secondary sources as are most of the other works. I'm not so sure that the reader benefits by having references by their importance to this article.
     • Comment When there are many sources in an article, I actually find it useful if they are organized, rather than strictly alphabetical. I've renamed the references subheads.
       • Renaming them takes care of the problem. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Colonists reinforce…, P1, S5: The alternative outcome of the battle should be more closely cited, even if it's included in the cite after the next sentence. Fixed
   • Analysis, P1 has no citations. This reads rather ORish to me.
     • Comment This para is intended to be an introduction or lead into the material that follows. As such, does (or should) it require citation? (If you don't think it's doing that job appropriately, we can work to make it do that to your satisfaction.)
       • OK. I see where you're coming from then. Not a problem. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Because "Pyrrhic victory" can be an inherently POV term, the "Pyrrhic British victory" in the infobox needs to be cited to a source that refers to it by that name.
     • Comment See footnote 52 (in the version you reviewed, in case I add more). Clinton isn't the only Brit to make specific allusions to Pyrrhus; Abercrombie (of Battle of Carillon infamy) did too. I'll add that cite to the infobox.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Comment This article is a persistent IP-vandalism target, and is currently scheduled to come off semi-protection on the 26th. I'm going to ask for it to be extended at least through the end of the review period.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • It's too bad that there are typos in File:Bunker hill first attack.gif and File:Bunker hill final attack.gif
     • Comment I actually opened a request at the graphics map lab to get these maps redone (for several reasons, including readability at smaller scale) several weeks ago; the request went stale and has been archived.
       • You might post a query for Durova, who does a lot of great image work. At the very least he/she might be able to suggest someone who could correct and/or SVGify them. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
         • Comment Those maps will definitely be improved before this article gets anywhere near FAC. I've already got a map restoration for a different article in Durova's queue; s/he seems pretty backed up.
   • Not sure I see the relevance of the flag illustrations to the article. They seem to be mostly for decoration.
     • Comment Other than being (allegedly) present at the event, they are basically decorative.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

There are a few prose issues and a couple of referencing issues that need to be addressed, but I'm most concerned about the paragraph directly under the "Analysis" header. Placing on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some changes made, some comments, see above. Thanks for your detailed review. Magic♪piano 12:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the items that have been addressed so far. One thing I just noticed that needs to be taken care of before any future A-Class or FA candidacies (it doesn't affect the GA review) is the date formats in the references section seem to be in the ISO-style rather than month day, year as in the rest of the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that takes care of the remaining issues? Magic♪piano 17:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)