 | Battle of Short Hills has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 25, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the 2,000 American soldiers who fought in the Battle of Short Hills against 17,000 British men suffered only minor casualties and were able to inflict considerable damage on the enemy? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
England/Britain
editThe conflation of England and Britain in the "prelude" section of this article is offensive to people who are from Britain but not England 86.143.39.55 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you see something like that, please feel free to remove it yourself, or replace it with the appropriate wording etc. Thanks for pointing that out. (I'll fix it soon) —A • D Torque 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Assessment comments
editThese have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.
This article should cite the principal basic published source on the battle: "War in the Countryside - The Battle and Plunder of the Short Hills, New Jersey, June, 1777" by Frederic C. Detwiller (Plainfield, NJ: Interstate Printing Corporation, 1977) Charles H. Detwiller, architect, along with local volunteers, designed and erected the monument now standing on Raritan Road in Scotch Plains on the site of one of the encounters of June 26, 1777. 76.127.219.246 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Short Hills/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: —Ed!(talk) 04:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written:
- Comments
- To be politically correct I would avoid calling United States Citizens "Americans" in the lead (that term is generally contested by other cultures on the American continents.
- I'd suggest merging "naming" and "background" into one section. You could probably just put the "naming" line at the end of "background."
- "Background" should be a self-sustaining section that doesn't require you to link to another article for more context. Was this in the beginning, middle or end of the war? How was the war progressing. Two short lines on these should bring a reader up to date pretty easily.
- Prelude section: "since intelligence informed him that Howe had left behind equipment for crossing the Delaware River behind, that he was unlikely to be heading for Philadelphia." - Sentence needs rewording.
- "British numbers forced Stirling, as determined as he was to stand against his foe," - editorializing. Please use more neutral language than "foe."
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Pass Covers the battle.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass
- It is stable:
- Pass
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass
- Overall:
- On Hold pending a few minor things. —Ed!(talk) 04:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review this! I think I've addressed your concerns; let me know if not. Magic♪piano 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Everything looks in order. Passing GA. Well done. —Ed!(talk) 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)