Talk:Forage War

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The American operations were so militarily expensive that British casualties in New Jersey (including those of the battles at Trenton and Princeton) exceeded those of the entire campaign for New York. Do you mean "The American operations were so militarily extensive..." "expensive" in the context of military history generally means involving a great loss of men and materiel, so as it stand this implies the Americans lost a lot of men and materiel. Perhaps this should be something like "The American operations were so militarily damaging"?  Done

   Over the course of January and February, Washington's Continental Army shrank to about 2,500 regulars,... Why did it shrink?  Done

   Early in the winter, Washington sent out detachments of troops to systematically remove any remaining provisions and livestock from convenient access to the British. Surely "access by" is better than "access to"?  Done

   General Washington to move his army from its winter quarters at Morrisville to a more forward position at Middlebrook in late May. There is a verb missing here.  Done

   As General Howe prepared his Philadelphia campaign, he first moved a large portion of his army to Somerset Court House in mid-June, apparently in an attempt to draw Washington from this position. Slightly confusing - was Washington based at Somerset Court House?  Done

   The last stray sentence should be consolidate into the preceding paragraph.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I assume good faith for all sources; they appear reliable and the article is adequately referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough, without un-necessary detail.

   I am puzzled as to why there is an image of Philemon Dickinson in the infobox and he is mentioned there, but does not appear in the article itself.  Done

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:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed

   OK, I think that the article is now ready for GA status. Congratulations and thanks for your work on this article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments; I think I've addressed them. Let me know if not... Magic♪piano 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Clear American bias

I disagree that there is no bias in this article. It is obviously written with sympathy for the American cause, emphasising inflated reports of British casualties at little American cost. Reliance principally on only two secondary sources, Fischer (2004) and Lundin(1940), authors who both write clearly from the American point of view, guarantees this pro-American bias. JF42 (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I deny that there is clear bias. Perhaps you could (1) give a few specific examples of bias exhibited in the article (rather than just blandly asserting that it exists), (2) explain how you know that the figures presented are inflated, and (3) suggest additional sources (which are presumably how you know the figures are inflated) that you think would assist in rectifying the alleged bias. (I will parenthetically note that it is possible to use biased sources without subscribing to or propagating their bias. If you believe the cited sources to be biased, you might also give examples of how they manifest bias. I don't buy "they're American therefore they're biased pro-American".) Magic♪piano 12:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The heading was an unfortunate compression. I disagreed with the assessment that there was no bias (Re."It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias") I believe that the two secondary sources are writing 'clearly' from an American point of view.

The language of the article gives a strong sense of sympathy with American forces who are seen resourcefully prevailing against the cruel but hapless British. With a preponderance of positive terms used for the Americans and negative ones for the British, the accumulated overall impression shows sympathy for the rebel side. This is rather old-fashioned, isn't it? One can almost hear the boos and cheers.

The casualty reports I referred to are those from unconfirmed rebel/ patriot assessments of British/enemy casualties mostly issued immediately after the actions in which over-excitement and propaganda both naturally played a role. They are often contradicted by British accounts. Both need to be put in better context. You explain the problems with casualty figures but repeatedly quote them as indications of American success.

I hope the following is clear enough. I tabulated an analysis for clarity but unfortunately could not translate that format to this page. Instead, references to American forces are shown in bold; to the British in italic.

• Brigadier General Philemon Dickinson mustered 450 militia and drove off a British foraging expedition.
• These early successes

• Their difficulties led British commanders to change tactics...attempting to lure these militia units into traps

• But even this was not entirely successful
• wily militia and Continental commanders used superior knowledge to set even more elaborate traps

• thinking he had flanked a party of New Jersey militia, suddenly found he was flanked by a larger, superior force.

• The elite grenadiers of the 42nd Foot,... were badly mauled
• A British force of 2,000 was repulsed by Maxwell in another well-organized attack

• Hours later the bedraggled British horsemen came back without the foot soldiers.

• Ordered to pull back to Amboy, the garrison hurriedly left
• In the confused retreat, the Americans captured 100 soldiers [etc]

• the New Jersey militia scored a brilliant success

• the British refused to believe they had been beaten by militia.

• ...two British regiments were waylaid by Brigadier General William Maxwell.. The 200 New Jersey Continentals inflicted losses of seven killed and 12 wounded while only suffering two men wounded.
• Brigadier General Sir William Erskine, 1st Baronet set up a clever trap...Erskine rushed his large force into action...Instead of fleeing, the Virginians launched a vicious attack which momentarily broke a grenadier battalion.

• Under intense cannon fire, the American attack was stopped, but the soldiers fought tenaciously until the British fell back. [HURRAH]

• The action was marred - OTHERWISE AN ELEGANT AFFAIR?
• ...an ugly incident

• a tactical withdrawal -SO, NOT A RETREAT.
• The frustrated British - THIS WAS AT BEST A SMALL PARTY OF MEN. WHAT RECORD OF THEIR STATE OF MIND?
• seven helpless men... slaughtered them all -IT IS ALLEGED
• Erskine....denied all responsibility -HE REJECTED STEPHEN'S ACCUSATIONS

• Mahwood was sent....to destroy any rebel forces he could catch.

• Mawhood's surprised men were hounded all the way back.
• For losses of five killed and nine wounded, the Americans claimed to have inflicted 100 casualties. Mawhood admitted losing 69 killed and wounded...

• Outnumbering the Americans 2,000 to 500, the British scattered the militia but met stubborn resistance from the 8th Pennsylvania Regiment... but the bulk of Lincoln's force got away

• Howe...apparently in an attempt to draw Washington... When this failed -IF WE AREN’T SURE OF HIS INTENTIONS, HOW CAN WE SAY THEY FAILED?
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

JF42 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) JF42 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

An troubling example

It has been stated above that the article exhibits bias, and another editor asked for an example. I don't know if bias is the right word, however I am troubled by the article's over reliance on David Hackett Fischer as a source. In his Washington's Crossing he wrote one paragraph on the incident at Drake's Farm and ended with the sentence, "As the Americans lay dying, the British troops brutally plundered their bodies with great violence."(p. 378) Fischer's source for this story is a magazine article from 1967, which gave no further sources as to where it (the article) got this story (Fischer, p. 538, New Jersey History, Fall-Winter, 1967, p. 227). In the next footnote Fischer gave an issue of the Pennsylvania Packet for 1777 as a source, yet newspapers of the time did not have the kind of editorial standards we think of today. Did the incident at Drake's farm ever happen? Were the casualties merely the result of skirmishing rather than brutal plunder? There is no way of knowing unless some better source than Fischer can be found, and I suggest there is no way of knowing at all. The claim of British misbehavior at Drake's Farm may be true - or may be simple propaganda.Catherinejarvis (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)