Talk:James Moore (Continental Army officer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 13:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Myrevolutionarywar.com is not a reliable source. The article on revolutionarywararchives.org only contains the most general of references. Considering that book-length treatments exist of the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge, I have to question the use of these sources. (This is equally true of the battle article BTW.) This effectively leaves the entire battle description unsourced (since the third ref to that paragraph is a biographic stub); at a minimum, that paragraph will require better sourcing.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There is little personal background; did he marry? There is little about is service before the revolution; what campaigns was he involved in during the French and Indian War? Other Indian conflicts? If it is claimed these things are not known, that will have to be cited.

   B. Focused:

   This is OK, but more seems to be written about family than about the man himself in the early life section.

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:

   Images are not required to pass GA. However, I feel strongly that articles should have images. Presumably there are no images of Moore; imagery related to his ancestry, home, and the battle would all add value to the article.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The most important issues that need attention are 2b and 3a. While the sourcing issue (2b) is serious, the lack of pre-revolution biography (or assertions that such background is unavailable) is more troubling.

I will put the nomination on hold. I'm pretty lenient about keeping reviews open if there appears to be activity addressing the issues I've raised. Magic♪piano 04:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Responses from main editor: Go ahead and fail it now. I'm not sure I have much time to dedicate to making those fixes. Yes, I agree they need to be made, but I will have to get to them at a later date. Thanks for taking the time to review this, I appreciate the work you did in giving this a thorough review! --Jayron32 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. (BTW I've recently been working on his grandfather's activities.) Magic♪piano 13:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)