Talk:Battle of Millstone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Lead, "also known as the Battle of Van Nest's Mills" Is "Mills" supposed to be plural? The rest of the article implies that the battle was around just one mill. Made consistent It is unclear how extensive the complex was from the available descriptions.
   • Background, "and remained there for about a week before retreating back to New Brunswick, destroying houses and plundering supplies". Why did they retreat? Beats me
   • Battle, in one place it is "Van Nest's mill" and in another "Van Nest's Mill" (see capitalization difference). Please standardize. Done
   • Aftermath section, Dickinson lists two field pieces, but Washington lists three. Do you know what is behind this difference? Comment Washington is referring to enemy pieces, Dickinson to those of his militia.

   • Really? Dickinson says "I attacked a foraging party...consisting of 500 men with 2 field pieces" which would seem to be referring to the enemy.

   • Hmm, you're right. Presumably one or the other is wrong on the count. Magic♪piano 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • What makes the "The Battle of Millstone" (Valis, Glenn) reference reliable? He seems to simply have an interest in history, rather than being an expert in the subject. I would suggest finding and using the sources he presents, and finding other references for the information he gives that is not referenced.

   • Comment I generally avoid web pages of this sort as references, precisely over reliability concerns. Every source of his that I was able to access checked out, and he does document his sources. (In fact, I did just what you suggest. If you look at his footnotes, you'll see some of the sources here.) I'd actually use the others directly, but that will probably require a trip to New Jersey. Magic♪piano 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Even though he does, for the most part, cite his sources, I still don't see him as reliable. Term paper websites cite their sources, but that doesn't mean that it's acceptable to cite their example papers as references (and yes, I have seen people do this!). Would you like for me to ask for a second opinion on this? I realize that removing this source will pretty much butcher the article, but I don't see how this reference meets the GA criteria for reliable sources.

   • Well, it's a debatable point, but I'm not going to enter into it right now. Most of my references to Valis are to a single underlying source, which actually turns out to be in a nearby library (albeit not one I regularly visit). I will try to pay it a visit this week. Magic♪piano 18:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Ok, neat! I'll keep the review open for however long it takes, just let me know when you're done! Dana boomer (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

   • It would be nice to see back-up references for the Messler and Upham refs, since they are both over 125 years old. Interpretation of facts, and even the facts themselves, can change significantly in that period of time. This isn't a must, however.

   • Comment Upham is used to cite two sentences of background. I probably wanted to find a source other than Fischer (not that Fischer's unreliable, but for variety) to corroborate. I don't think what I cite him for as particularly controversial. Messler is a local history, albeit old -- I might be able to replace it, but the sort of detail it provides is surprisingly lacking in other sources, like Barbara Mitnick's book about NJ in the revolution, or Fischer, who has vivid details on some other minor actions. Magic♪piano 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Like I said, it's not a must, just something that would be nice. You are correct that nothing you are citing to these two is particularly controversial.

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.:

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:

Overall, a nicely written article. However, I have some concerns about the references, and a few minor comments on the prose. Let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of your concerns. One quote I've not been able to extricate from Valis is Dickinson's report. We can either (a) leave it, as it is mostly color (I think anything of note in it is already cited elsewhere), or (b) remove it. Magic♪piano 16:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I would prefer another ref for the last Valis cite, but it's not a major sticking point - also see my comment on one of the prose issues above. However, the article looks good to go for GA status now. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Magic♪piano 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)