Talk:Battle of the Cedars

Force Strength

According to the box describing the battle, there were no more than 200 on the British/Native side, but in the text, the force strength is listed as 650. Which is right?Dave 06:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Poor quality

There is a couple of problems connected to this article: 1. Its difficult to read. Some sentences is not complete and its all written in one paragraf. 2. Its not about the battle. Its about what happened to the soldiers after the battle. Shauni 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Battle of Vaudreuil

Discuss "merger" of Battle of Vaudreuil stub here.

The Vaudreuil article is currently a nearly-empty stub. Establishing context to explain the action in a separate article (see the section on the skirmish in this article) would require largely replicating this article. Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there was such strong feeling, I went ahead and "merged" (replaced Vaudreuil article with redirect here). Magic♪piano 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Cedars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Prelude, P1, S1 (the only one): I split this into two sentences
   • I also made a few other minor copyedits for punctuation, etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

Other than the minor items that I fixed (listed above), I could find nothing lacking in this article, so I am passing it. Great job! — Bellhalla (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Magic♪piano 03:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag

Given that you have used the correctly dated flags for Great Britain and the United Colonies, it seems a bit anachronistic to use an Iroquois flag from the 1980s in this article. If the Iroquois used a single flag at the time then that should be used, if not then you shouldn't use any flag at all for them.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not conversant in the history of the Iroquois banner. If in fact this use is anachronistic, it is hardly alone in WP, as it is is used in quite a few Revolutionary War (and earlier) articles. (I have no objection to altering this condition, just noting that it exists.) Magic♪piano 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The banner is a modern construct and as such is anchronistic. I would recommend removing it from this page and any others that predate its development.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I estimate that 20-30 of the flag 80 or so usages of the flag may be at issue. I'll certainly remove it from articles I work on. Magic♪piano 15:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quinze Chiens name

I don't know how to enter info correctly here without messing up someone's work, but I have a comment. I was told and have seen in records that the place called Quinze Chiens is a francization of the native american word Quenechoen. Andielemmer (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Andielemmer

What sort of records did you see? If it's published in some sort of book or scholarly publication, we could definitely use it. Magic♪piano 14:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)