Talk:Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Disambiguations: ~~One found for Cork, Ireland per [3] - can you please locate and fix this?~~ Done

Linkrot: No problems with the external links found per [4]

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

in the infobox you have Colonial victory, but elsewhere the article mainly refers to "Patriots", should these be consistent?

in the lead (first sentence) I'd suggest mentioning that the battle was part of the American Revolutionary War. For an example, see Battle of Bunker Hill;

in the lead I think there is a missing word in the second paragraph "in the interior North Carolina", I think "of" should be inserted between "interior" and "North Carolina";

in the lead Wilmington is overlinked;

in the lead "was met with a barrage" I think would sound better as "was met by a barrage";

is there a need to include the co-ordinates above the infobox and in the infobox?

in the British recruiting section there is a large amount of whitespace due to the placement of the image of MacDonald;

in the British recruiting section you mention "Regulators" but you don't seem to say what they are;

in the British recruiting section you have "one thousand men", but I think MOS-wise it would be better shown as "1,000 men";

in the British recruiting section, I suggest wikilinking "battalion" so that lay readers can find out more if they don't know what the term means;

in the British recruiting section, "two veterans who were in the Battle of Bunker Hill" is a bit awkward, I'd suggest "two veterans of Bunker Hill";

in the British recruiting section, "They were also aware that Allan MacDonald" - this sentence seems a bit out of place. Who is "they" referring to?

in the British recruiting section, please check your spelling of "Maclean", sometimes you have "Mclean";

in the British recruiting section, I think "seven to eight hundred" should be " 700 to 800"

in the British recruiting section, could the citations be placed in consecutive numerical order in this sentence "MacDonald led between 1,400 and 1,600 men, predominately Scots" (you have Citation #3 before #2);

in the Prelude section "chose as an alternate route that would eventually" appears to be missing something. Should "as" be removed? Or should a word be inserted there somewhere? Sorry, I can't quite put my finger on it;

in the Battle section, I think "seven and eight hundred men" should be "700 and 800 men";

"thirty paces", "twenty musket balls", "thirty Loyalists", I think these should use numerals per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words (particularly so that;

in the Battle section, is this a typo: "I suppose their loss mahy"? (mahy being the word I think might be a typo);

in the Aftermath section, "$15,000 of Spanish gold" - is this in today's dollars, or the value at the time?

in the Aftermath section, the quotation from Cornwallis should begin with a lower case "m", thusly: "[m]any of the inhabitants..." (the square brackets indicating that you have adjusted the punctuation per Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations;

in the Aftermath section, I think "reenacted" should be hyphenated as "re-enacted";

in the Notes section Citation # 7 "Fryer, pp. 121-122" should have an endash per WP:DASH;

in the Notes section for Citations # 25 to 28 that are web citations, I'd suggest simply linking them in the Notes with the full details using {{cite web}} and leaving them out of the References section, where you could just include the full bibliographic details for the books. That seems to be acceptable in the A class articles I've been involved in , for instance this one here: Battle of Slater's Knoll;

in the References section the year range for the Meyer source should have an endash per WP:DASH;

in the References section the title of the Fryer source should be capitalised as such: "Allan Maclean, Jacobite General: The Life of an Eighteen Century Career Soldier" per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. The Russell and Wilson titles also need to be tweaked per this guideline;

the Categories should be put into alphabetical order: 1776 in the United States; Battles involving Great Britain; Battles involving the United States; Battles of the American Revolutionary War; Conflicts in 1776 and North Carolina in the American Revolution. Done

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
all claims are sourced and references are reliable sources;

I don't believe that there is any original research in the article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~the article hits the right balance between covering the major aspects and being focused, IMO.~~
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
~~No problems in this regard, IMO.~~
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
~~The article is not subject to an edit war.~~
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
It is not a requirement, but can I suggest that all the images have alt text added to them? Currently it seems that some have, and some don't (this is just a suggestion, though, and doesn't affect the review);

the images are appropriate for the article;

~~"File:DonaldMacDonald84thRegiment.jpg" is missing a description and to be honest I think is incorrectly licenced. I think it needs to have a {{PD-Self}} licence.~~
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
I have a number of comments that I feel need to be addressed, however, I believe that these should not lead to a quick fail and that once they are addressed it can be successfully listed as a GA. As such I will put the review on hold for seven days while I wait for work to be done on the article. Good luck and good work so far;

Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. Cheers.AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed review. I'm about to leave on a vacation on which I will have limited internet access, so hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns with my recent edits. A few notes:
There are two different, unrelated individuals, (Allan) Maclean and (Alexander) Mclean, hence some of the spelling differences. I've fixed the Alexander refs so they're consistent.

I have removed the image of MacDonald; I will re-add it when I have time to ask the uploader to provide more details about its provenance. (I'll also add alt texts eventually.)
~~--Magic♪piano 13:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Great work. I believe that you have addressed all of my concerns, so I am happy to close the review and promote the article to GA. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Magic♪piano 17:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]