Talk:Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Magicpiano in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply


  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Disambiguations: One found for Cork, Ireland per [3] - can you please locate and fix this?   Done

Linkrot: No problems with the external links found per [4]

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  

  • in the infobox you have Colonial victory, but elsewhere the article mainly refers to "Patriots", should these be consistent?
  • in the lead (first sentence) I'd suggest mentioning that the battle was part of the American Revolutionary War. For an example, see Battle of Bunker Hill;
  • in the lead I think there is a missing word in the second paragraph "in the interior North Carolina", I think "of" should be inserted between "interior" and "North Carolina";
  • in the lead Wilmington is overlinked;
  • in the lead "was met with a barrage" I think would sound better as "was met by a barrage";
  • is there a need to include the co-ordinates above the infobox and in the infobox?
  • in the British recruiting section there is a large amount of whitespace due to the placement of the image of MacDonald;
  • in the British recruiting section you mention "Regulators" but you don't seem to say what they are;
  • in the British recruiting section you have "one thousand men", but I think MOS-wise it would be better shown as "1,000 men";
  • in the British recruiting section, I suggest wikilinking "battalion" so that lay readers can find out more if they don't know what the term means;
  • in the British recruiting section, "two veterans who were in the Battle of Bunker Hill" is a bit awkward, I'd suggest "two veterans of Bunker Hill";
  • in the British recruiting section, "They were also aware that Allan MacDonald" - this sentence seems a bit out of place. Who is "they" referring to?
  • in the British recruiting section, please check your spelling of "Maclean", sometimes you have "Mclean";
  • in the British recruiting section, I think "seven to eight hundred" should be " 700 to 800"
  • in the British recruiting section, could the citations be placed in consecutive numerical order in this sentence "MacDonald led between 1,400 and 1,600 men, predominately Scots" (you have Citation #3 before #2);
  • in the Prelude section "chose as an alternate route that would eventually" appears to be missing something. Should "as" be removed? Or should a word be inserted there somewhere? Sorry, I can't quite put my finger on it;
  • in the Battle section, I think "seven and eight hundred men" should be "700 and 800 men";
  • "thirty paces", "twenty musket balls", "thirty Loyalists", I think these should use numerals per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words (particularly so that;
  • in the Battle section, is this a typo: "I suppose their loss mahy"? (mahy being the word I think might be a typo);
  • in the Aftermath section, "$15,000 of Spanish gold" - is this in today's dollars, or the value at the time?
  • in the Aftermath section, the quotation from Cornwallis should begin with a lower case "m", thusly: "[m]any of the inhabitants..." (the square brackets indicating that you have adjusted the punctuation per Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations;
  • in the Aftermath section, I think "reenacted" should be hyphenated as "re-enacted";
  • in the Notes section Citation # 7 "Fryer, pp. 121-122" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
  • in the Notes section for Citations # 25 to 28 that are web citations, I'd suggest simply linking them in the Notes with the full details using {{cite web}} and leaving them out of the References section, where you could just include the full bibliographic details for the books. That seems to be acceptable in the A class articles I've been involved in , for instance this one here: Battle of Slater's Knoll;
  • in the References section the year range for the Meyer source should have an endash per WP:DASH;
  • in the References section the title of the Fryer source should be capitalised as such: "Allan Maclean, Jacobite General: The Life of an Eighteen Century Career Soldier" per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. The Russell and Wilson titles also need to be tweaked per this guideline;
  • the Categories should be put into alphabetical order: 1776 in the United States; Battles involving Great Britain; Battles involving the United States; Battles of the American Revolutionary War; Conflicts in 1776 and North Carolina in the American Revolution.   Done
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  • all claims are sourced and references are reliable sources;
  • I don't believe that there is any original research in the article.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  • the article hits the right balance between covering the major aspects and being focused, IMO.
  • No problems in this regard, IMO.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  • The article is not subject to an edit war.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':  
  • It is not a requirement, but can I suggest that all the images have alt text added to them? Currently it seems that some have, and some don't (this is just a suggestion, though, and doesn't affect the review);
  • the images are appropriate for the article;
  • "File:DonaldMacDonald84thRegiment.jpg" is missing a description and to be honest I think is incorrectly licenced. I think it needs to have a {{PD-Self}} licence.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  
  • I have a number of comments that I feel need to be addressed, however, I believe that these should not lead to a quick fail and that once they are addressed it can be successfully listed as a GA. As such I will put the review on hold for seven days while I wait for work to be done on the article. Good luck and good work so far;
  • Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. Cheers.AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your detailed review. I'm about to leave on a vacation on which I will have limited internet access, so hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns with my recent edits. A few notes:
    • There are two different, unrelated individuals, (Allan) Maclean and (Alexander) Mclean, hence some of the spelling differences. I've fixed the Alexander refs so they're consistent.
    • I have removed the image of MacDonald; I will re-add it when I have time to ask the uploader to provide more details about its provenance. (I'll also add alt texts eventually.)

--Magic♪piano 13:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply