Talk:Battle on Snowshoes/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion

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

The prose is somewhat stilted in places, but on the whole a credible 6/10 I think. I do have some specific concerns below however.

I don't think that "Indians" is an appropriate way to refer to Native Americans. Much preferable would be to name the particular group involved.

Comment Most of the sources I've looked at are vague on tribal identity (Nester and Brumwell don't say; Parkman says "Mission Indians", which is useless for identifying tribal affiliations). Most of the articles I've seen (before working on articles involving Indians) use "Indians" (rather than "Native American" or the anachronistic "First Nations") when tribal affiliations are unknown or uncertain. The Indians involved were probably Iroquois and/or Abenaki (the two nearest tribal groupings friendly to the French at the time), but I don't have sources that say so.

Fair enough, although I'm still unhappy with the use of the word in this context (I'm not blaming you, I under stand the sourcing problem, but it still grates on me somewhat - I work professionally with Native Americans who I know would be horrified by this usage).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When Rogers' men arrived the attack by Langy's force dropped an estimated 50 men" there is a comma missing some where here, but more important is the use of the word dropped in this context, which is unencyclopedic.

Comment Changed "dropped" to "felled". Feel free to suggest an alternative wording; sources don't indicate that they were killed.

I've changed it in the article to "killed or wounded", which I think is the best way to explain what happened in encyclopedic prose.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

The references are OK, but three sources is only just enough really, especially when there is a long further reading list that doesn't seem to have been used. This may be why I feel that the article is a bit low on detail

Comment I've actually looked at more than just the sources cited, in search of additional detail. The long reading list may be indicative of the lack of detail available on some points.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

The prelude begins "The French and Indian War broke out in 1754". We need quite a bit more context than this - who was involved, and why? - it doesn't have to be complicated, for example "The French and Indian War, a conflict between France and Britain over control of North America, broke out in 1754" Clarified

"but reduced the number to 180" - do you know why? Was it related to the suspicions of an informant?

Comment None of the sources I've seen explain Haviland's reduction of the force. (Haviland and Rogers apparently did not get along very well, but I can't see why that would be a reason for the step.)

"A letter by Henry Pringle, written while held in captivity at Carillon, restored his reputation" - how if his reports were so inaccurate? Clarified

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, I am now happy to pass this article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]