Talk:Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1775–1776/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. It clearly explains to me why Benedict Arnold had so much trouble, which I never fully understood before. I have only a few, minor comments"

• Committee of Safety (in the lead) and Fort George (Early Revolutionary War) need disambiguation

Lead

• "He then resigned is Massachusetts commission over command disputes at Ticonderoga after the arrival of additional Connecticut militia troops." - not clear if the arrival of additional Connecticut troops cause the "command disputes", or if he wait until they arrived before he resigned.

• I assume that "courts martial" is the correct plural, instead of court martials?

Quebec expedition

• How did Arnold come to be using an inaccurate map given to him by a British military engineer?

Later military career

• "His British military service consisted of an expedition to raid American supply depots in Virginia in 1781, whose major action was the Battle of Blandford, and then a raid against New London, Connecticut" - the "whose" refers to "expedition"?

This article is is very well written. However, I advise getting a peer review if you intend to take it to FAC. I see no flaws, but the FAC people have different standards. Xtzou (Talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I think this article (and the next one in the series) are needed to show in detail what might have motivated Arnold's defection, so it's good to know I succeeded in this one. I think I've made changes that address your concerns -- I will note that the means by which Arnold acquired Montresor's map and journal are not described, even in sources I checked that are dedicated to the expedition. (It certainly wasn't by asking Montresor -- he was on the other side of the lines in Boston.) Magic♪piano 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the subject

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

• Great job! Xtzou (Talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Magic♪piano 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)