Talk:Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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)

• 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

• 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.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• 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)

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)

• Great work. I believe that you have addressed all of my concerns, so I am happy to close the review and promote the article to GA. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! Magic♪piano 17:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)