Talk:Henry Clinton (British Army officer, born 1730)/GA2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry Clinton (1730–1795)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead should be longer - two solid paragraphs is sufficient for an article of this length. Try to summarize the entire article in the lead.
   • Please try to combine or expand short paragraphs - especially those of only one or two sentences.
   • Try to avoid the use of paranthetical insertions. Either explain the information in normal prose or take it out. You don't have to remove all of them, but there are rather a lot in the article.
   • Prose issues:

   • Early life section, "(although it was 1743 before he actually got there)". Either explain this or take it out, don't leave the reader guessing. FIXED Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Early life section, "When he was old enough, Henry Clinton spent time in the New York militia." Vague... What is "old enough"? How much time? FIXED
   • Commander in chief section, "it had gained control of the hinterland". The what? Please reword to make more obvious and less POV. FIXED
   • Commander in chief section, "British commanders almost aimed at mobilising..." They did what? How do you almost aim?
   • Commander in chief section, third paragraph, "in this strategy". What strategy are you talking about here? Please reword to make more obvious.
   • Legacy section, "he lived retired with very poor staff work" This reads oddly to me - I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Please reword for clarity. FIXED

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • References needed:

   • The third paragraph of the American Revolutionary War section.
   • The last two paragraphs of the Commander in Chief section
   • The last paragraph of the Later career section

   • All web references need publishers and access dates, and links should have titles, rather than being left as bare links. FIXED

   • Not fixed. Refs 13 and 14 need access dates, ref 15 needs a publisher (fully spell out the acronym, please), and the web refs should all be formatted the same way. The title of the web site should be the link, not the access date, and web references are usually formatted author (if available), title (with url link), publisher, access date.

   • Books need ISBN numbers FIXED, for all books with them
   • Books need page numbers
   • The Hyma and Mackesy books need publishers.

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:

   • Please check for POV wording. I have removed some, but some still remains. For example, the "hinterland" wording that I commented on above in the prose section, as well as "stunning and serious defeat" in the COC section (maybe not POV, but definitely wordy, could probably just be "serious defeat"). Other wording like this appears throughout the article.

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:

This article has quite a few problems with prose and referencing, but most of them are minor, so I am going to put this article on hold to allow time to address my concerns. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Queries about the review

Re: "Commander in chief section, "it had gained control of the hinterland". The what? Please reword to make more obvious and less POV" Hinterland is the region lying inland of a port or centre of influence, seems perfectly clear to me. I am not sure how this sentence is POV. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a mistake on my part. I somehow didn't realize that the term was wikilinked and was being used in the sense that it was meant to be used, rather than a bastardized meaning of "out in the middle of no-where". Sorry about this, I'll strike the comment above.

I've updated everything above, with a couple of new comments, as well as striking what's been done. In the future, please leave issues for me to strike, as I use the bullet points as sort of a check list to see what's been done and what hasn't, and then strike issues off as I see them completed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you still working on the items above? There are still quite a few issues that need to be addressed before this article can make GA, and the article has been on hold for over a week, with very little action by the editors on the concerns I've outlined. If you could let me know if you are still aiming for GA, that would be great! Dana boomer (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There is not all that much work that needs to be done before the article can gain GA status, but I have not gotten any response from the editors after my post above, and no new work has been completed on the article. I would highly recommend that this work be completed and this article resubmitted to GAN, as it is very close to GA status. If you wish, drop me a note when you do this and I will be happy to place the article at the top of my list of articles to review. Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)