Talk:Battle of Chelsea Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   see below

   B. MoS compliance:

   only a couple of MoS errors, but I think that I got all of them.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

To me, this paragraph seems like it was just thrown in the article in a random spot... but I don't know where it should be moved to. =/

In terms of modern geography, the Orient Heights neighborhood of East Boston is the present location of Hog Island,[10] and much of the remainder of East Boston is what was then Noddle's Island.[11] These islands lay to the northeast of Boston, and east of Charlestown, which was separated from Noddle's Island by the Mystic River.

Otherwise, this article looks great to me. On hold until you can get to this (shouldn't be too hard =]) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dagnabit. I've been struggling with that one myself. The thing is, it kinda has to be there, because the geography around Boston is soooo not what it was back then. Magic♪piano 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that this might violate WP:LEAD, but I'll cite WP:IAR - you should put it in the lead I think. It really has no place in the article as it is now, and a one/two sentence section is really not helpful to a reader...but you have to have that info in the article (I totally agree with your point above)! Try that for now, and maybe reviewers in an A-class review (if you take it there) can help. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, did you use endashes for page ranges in your refs? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead already mentioned that the geography was different. I've moved that paragraph to the end, and elaborated it a bit. I may eventually get a better picture or map, but I think the one I put in does well enough. Let me know what you think. (I still need to nail down at least approximate dates for the land reclamation.)

I'll also have a look at endashes when I nail down that cite. I haven't specifically used – in the page ranges. Magic♪piano 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well once you get that, it'll pass. :)

It's not a requirement for GA, but for A and FA it is...endashes have to be used for date and page ranges (per MOS:ENDASH). Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

One trip to the library later, and we have citations. I think all the cites are also endashed, now. Magic♪piano 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I'm passing the article now; good luck in any future reviews! ;D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still waiting for the "right" article to come along as an A/FA candidate. I'm not sure Siege of Boston is it, given that it can use some analysis. This might actually be a better A candidate... Magic♪piano 02:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this can make it through A. Even if some people have problems, you should be able to address them easily! (and besides, if it fails, does it hurt anything? No! It can only get better =]) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)