Talk:Henry Clinton (British Army officer, born 1730)/GA1

GA Review

GA On Hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written FAIL

1.1 Prose

I really think this would benefit from a good copyedit, as a lot of the writing is stilted or doesn't make grammatical sense. A few of the things I've come across:

• Clinton was born in Newfoundland, then a British colony over which his father, George Clinton, was governor - Of which, surely? FIXED

• In 1751, the young Henry went to England - why 'the young' in here? FIXED

• He was at first commissioned as a Captain - Again, no need for 'at first', it just sounds awkward. FIXED

• The lead is also far too short. It should summarise the article and be at least two paragraphs, not a few sentences.

1.2 Manual of Style I have several issues about the article for this section:

• The links to external websites in the citations should be formatted (use of {{citeweb}} template is recommended, though not required) to include access dates. Note this will not fail a GA Review, but is extremely helpful. UNABLE TO FIX (Did not add EL sources)

• All of the references are not cited properly using the correct citation templates, which is a major issue. (References are now properly cited)

• References using the same page numbers of the same book need to be combined together. (It is not apparent as to which page they are referring to)

• Regarding layout, the accepted format is for "See also" to come before the Notes and Refs sections (per WP:LAYOUT), and headings should normally be singular (per WP:MOSHEAD), so "Evaluations" should be "Evaluation" (although to be honest a more appropriate title could be found - 'Evaluation' sounds rather like WP:OR. Maybe 'Legacy' or 'Aftermath'?) FIXED

2 Factual accuracy FAIL

• Far too few citations for a GA article in my opinion. Some sections only have one or two per large paragraph, which I don't believe to be enough. (Only contentious material must be cited. Some of the cites are most likely for whole paragraphs)

• There is practically nothing on Clinton's later life, and having done several university courses on the American War of Revolution know that there was a great deal he did in his later career. That section also has no references and requires them. (Was unable to locate any further information on his post ARW career)

• His early career also has very few citations, and more are needed.

• Specific sentences requiring citation include the following ones below. Citations for quotes are mandatory at GA level.

The sentence "Late during the Seven Years' War, Clinton distinguished himself (1760–1762) as an aide-de-camp to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, and he was promoted to full Colonel in 1762." says he 'distinguished himself'. Unless this is backed up with a cite, it comes over as editor opinion.

Also, "...Clinton strongly advocated that British forces secure them against rebel occupation, but his warnings went unheeded by Howe." Who says Howe ignored Clinton, and where do they say it?

He was, wrote Major Wemyss who served under him, "an honourable and respectable officer of the German school; having served under Prince Ferdinand of Prussia and the Duke of Brunswick. Vain, open to flattery; and from a great aversion to all business not military, too often misled by aides de camp and favourites."

The Colonel Charles Stuart vitriolically called him "fool enough to command an army when he is incapable of commanding a troop of horse."

In 1782, Clinton was replaced as Commander-in-Chief by Sir Guy Carleton, and he returned to England. His replacement is linked to the fate of the southern army, which was surrounded and forced to surrender by George Washington and the Comte de Rochambeau, who commanded a combined French-American Army after the Siege of Yorktown. - Seems like WP:OR without at least one citation and a rewrite.

By late in 1779, having called in the troops from Newport to do so, Clinton had assembled a strong force for the next step in this strategy, an invasion of South Carolina. Clinton took personal command of this campaign, and the task force with 14,000 men sailed south from New York at the end of the year. By early 1780, Clinton had brought Charleston under siege. In May, working together with Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot, he forced the surrender of the city, with its garrison of 5,000, in a stunning and serious defeat for the rebel cause. - Needs at least one citation, if not more.

In June, an attack under Clinton's command was made on Fort Sullivan at Charleston, South Carolina. It was a humiliating failure, and his campaign in the Carolinas was called off. - Needs a citation here.

In May, working together with Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot, he forced the surrender of the city, with its garrison of 5,000, in a stunning and serious defeat for the rebel cause. - Citation needed, and also rewriting as it sounds WP:OR again.

• The whole section 'Early Life' needs a number of citations for accuracy.

3 Coverage Fail

• Again, needs more coverage of his later career, as well as his earlier career.

• The 'Evaluations' section only has two citations, yet a great deal is written in there and could do with more citations.

• Looking at the "Notes" and "References" sections, they don't seem to gel. There are many books listed under "References" that don't appear in the "Notes" (so were they used at all?), and one in the "Notes" that has no accompanying Reference. These definitely need some work. Also, all books for which ISBN's exist (post 1966ish) should give them. (ISBNs are listed as optional in WP:CITE)

4 Neutrality PASS

No evidence of POV in the article.

5 Stability PASS

Appears to be stable and thus passes.

6 Images PASS

Looks good - nice selection, well presented and captioned, with appropriate licenses. However:

• I'd recommend moving the portrait image under "American Revolutionary War" to the right of the page to vary placement and prevent bunching of text (and it needs a caption).

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to contact me if you have any queries, especially since this is my first GA Review. Skinny87 (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)