Talk:Battle of Longue-Pointe/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing the article for GA. The article is clearly written and well referenced. I have done a little copy editing which you are free to change. I have only a few comments, listed below. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I do not think "natives" is capitalized in today's world. The word used to be capitalized in early writing. By "local natives", to whom are you referring?
• In reference #37, you have See Allen's memoir. Why do you not list Allen's memoir as a reference in the usual way?

This is a very nice article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In re natives: "Native" is, as far as I know, the PC word to use that means "aboriginal inhabitant of unknown (or uncertain) tribal affiliation". In Rev War articles involving Quebec, this can also be confused with the French-speaking inhabitants (who have been living there for several generations by this time). I always try to make it clear, by linking the first use of "Native" to something like First Nations or Native Americans in the United States (which can be unsatisfactory for other reasons), and by additional context, that the word Native implies "not European in origin".

Of the four places in the article where I used the word "Native", the tribal identity is known in only one; I've edited that one to reflect it. I'll also link the first use of it to something appropriate.

In re Allen's memoir: the two uses are a bit odd for a typical factual reference. The first reference I will have to replace; this particular work does not actually contain the details about Allen's role in Vermont politics (I think I got it confused with something else). The second is more like a pointer to the book ("See? It's a 4th printing!"), rather than to any specific content in the book. I can change this to a reference to its front page (which indicates it is a fourth printing).

--Magic♪piano 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK, as it is important the the references citations be correct in choice and formatting. As far as native, is there not a general term? Capitalizing the word is not correct, per MoS. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. What about "Native" (as I described it) is not general? MOS is large, please point me to the appropriate section; MOS:CAPS seems to me to be silent on this subject. Political terms with specific meaning like Patriot and Loyalist are routinely capitalized (to differentiate them from more conventional meaning of the words), why/how is this different?

I've updated the citations, let me know if you have issues with them. Magic♪piano 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Natives is not capitalized as the word does not refer to a specific group as say American or Canadian does, so I changed the cap. Perhaps there is some place you can ask, say at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to get an answer, or the Library reference desk. Or ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as someone there will surely have the answer. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)