Talk:Battle of White Plains

Vandalism

Someone has vandalised this page, citing the battle as an American victory, replacing American casualty numbers without citing reliable sources and altering the text of the article. I have made some changes, but the article still needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This page, along with Harlem Heights which also keeps being vandalised to an American victory SHOULD be locked to established users only (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of White Plains/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead could stand to be expanded a bit. I know the article itself is short, but two sentences is a little...brief :)
   • Lead, "into Pennsylvania, from where he staged". "From where he" is rather oddly worded. Repeated in Aftermath section.

   • My issue was with the "from where", which sounded rather odd to my ears. If you are attached to it, though, it's not a big deal.

   • Background, "His troops began an unopposed". This makes it sound like they never finished. Perhaps "began with an"?
   • Background, "made another unopposed landing on Long Island on August 22, where General George Washington's Continental Army had organized significant defenses." What? There were significant organized defenses, but the landing was unopposed? I know this is the background section, so you're trying to be brief, but this sounds self-contradicting.
   • Battle, "from the British left column leading the British advance led by Johann Rall." First, repetition: British 2x, leading/led. Second, I'm really not sure what is trying to be said here.
   • Battle, "Eventually forced to retreat when Clinton's column threatened their flank, these companies retreated across the Bronx River, while fire from the troops on Chatterton Hill attacked their move." OK, if I have this right, it's the Americans who are retreating (threatened by Clinton), but why are they being fired upon by their own troops on Chatterton Hill?
   • Battle, "The British attack was organized with Hessian regiments leading the assault. Rall was to charge the American right, while a Hessian battalion under Donop (consisting of the Linsing, Mingerode, Lengereck, and Kochler grenadiers, and Donop's own chasseur regiment) was to attack the center, while a British column under General Leslie (consisting of the 5th, 28th, 35th, and 49th Foot) were to attack the right." First of all - really long sentence. Second, repetition of "..., while..., while..."
   • Legacy section. Could a bit more information be added to the ships that were named after the battle? The article isn't exactly exceeding length limits... Perhaps just something like "CVE-66 was a destroyer sunk during WWII (or whatever it was), while xxx was a yyy with fate zzz". Nothing fancy, just a little more information.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

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):

   • Last I heard, forcing image sizes through pixels was not recommended, as it screwed with user preferences. It can be used to make some images bigger, as you have with the map, but a better way to do it might be "upright=1.5" (you can replace the number with whatever you want), which I believe forces the size to a multiplier of the preferences (so in this case it would be 1.5 times bigger than a normal preference size). The 100 px formatting of some of the images, especially the last one of the ship, makes them so small I can barely see them.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice little article. A few prose/MOS comments and one image issue. Once these are taken care of, this article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback; I'll get to these issues in the next few days. Magic♪piano 15:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made changes that I think address your prose and image issues. Let me know if there's anything further. Thanks! Magic♪piano 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Still a couple of minor prose things, but nothing to hold up the nom over, so I am promoting the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I tweaked the language a bit more (I think I just missed one of those)... Magic♪piano 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Something about the Map of the Battle seems wrong

I realize that the map pictured is from a historical source, but it is completely inaccurate. It portrays Byram Pond (or as it's known now, Byram Lake) as directly East of White Plains, however it is actually several miles to the Northeast. Terry Town (now know as Tarrytown) is depicted as Southwest of White Plains, but it's actually Northwest of it. Its placed where Ossining should be located. Dobbs Ferry appears to be in the correct place relatively, however. Very strange. Based on the map it appears the battle actually took place in Chappaqua. Was Chappaqua considered part of White Plains in this time? 104.246.3.125 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of White Plains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/w7/white_plains-ii.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310002828/http://theamericanrevolution.org:80/battles/bat_wpla.asp to http://theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_wpla.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)