Talk:Battle on Snowshoes/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, before I begin a formal review of the article I have an important question: were these engagements contiguous and what links them other than their name? I can see that there are similarities and links, but it is not clear from the article how one engagement led into the other. There is sometimes a case for merging more than one battle into an article when they are contiguous and closely connected (I've done it my self, see Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean), but in those cases the connections between the actions are clear and here they are not. Did any other engagements or operations interrupt these encounters? Did one battle directly inspire the other? Can you clear this up here before discussions go further and we can work out the best way to proceed in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no causal connection between these actions; the only real commonalities are the players, the approximate location, and the winter situation. Given the way the article is structured, it would probably be relatively easy to split. (I could also make it clearer in the lead that they are not causally related.) Magic♪piano 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been a bit delayed this week, but I promise I will return to this soon.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm in no rush. Magic♪piano 14:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm really sorry its taken so long to get back to you on this - its been a hellish week at work, and next week promises to be worse. After thinking about this article at some length, I have come to the conclusion that unless very clear direct connections between the two engagements (other than the name, location and participants, i.e as part of the same sequence or campaign) are made then this article will have to be split into seperate articles on each battle. I'm sorry about this, I know it makes extra work, but in the long run I think it will be beneficial - the article's lay out and clarity both suffer because it is referring to two distinct events in quite a cramped space. If you disagree I would be very happy to discuss further and if you want to seek a second opinion then by all means do so. I will continue to participate in the review as long as it continues and will be happy to review the two new articles when/if they are created. The spiltting issue aside, I think the prose, referencing and style are all very good and that this article conforms with GA in most respects. I will be intermittently available over the next week, but will participate as and when I can.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Shall I just withdraw the nomination while I do that? Magic♪piano 03:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]