Talk:Battle of Valcour Island/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have the following comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I can see that this article is carefully written. However, it may benefit from more context and background. Even though I am somewhat familiar with the history, I had to follow the article very carefully, rereading most of it, to keep track of the locations etc. It might benefit from a more general map showing the overall location for those not intimately familiar with the American Revolution.
• A short background section may set the stage for those with little knowledge of the American Revolution and the role of Canadian geography.
• Some of the writing is awkward and repetitious. Repetitions of the word "only", for example (Unfortunately, I did not copy any examples.) I tried to vary the wording in some places by copy editing. Also, I think there is an over use of the word "which" (a word that FAC editors dislike).
• Overall it is an excellent article. My suggestions are in no way criticisms of it. The article very close to GA.

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I'll see what I can do. In the mean time, do you think this map would be helpful? Magic♪piano 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your second point. I'm wondering what additional background (that is not in the "Strategic Importance" section) you might find useful. (The only notable thing I think is missing there is the location of Saint-Jean, which is immediately referenced in the next section.) Magic♪piano 18:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if the changes I've made to the background (and the map I added) address your concerns. (I've left a fact tag for material that needs to be cited; if you're OK with the words, I'll actually provide cites.) Magic♪piano 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I looks good. I will go through it tomorrow. I notice that there is a {{citation needed}} tag on it. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because I have to justify the first paragraph. This won't be hard, but I wanted to be sure you liked it before I went to the trouble. Magic♪piano 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This is a fine article and you need not worry that it will not pass GA. I have one remaining question, and that is about the focus of the article. It seems to switch between the American and the Canadian/British point of view. I am wondering why, at the end, you say what happens to Captain Pringle but not to Benedict Arnold? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so much a POV thing, just that nothing really notable happened in the American camp that was somehow associated with this event. The fact that Pringle was criticized I thought worthy of mention; ditto the four admirals. I normally try to balance these sorts elements (I like NPOV); in this case, Arnold's near future acts (defense of Rhode Island, I believe), and distant acts (turning sides) aren't really consequences of this action. And both armies are basically going into winter quarters. Magic♪piano 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Makes sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets topic in context b (focused): Remains focused on article topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)