Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Long Island/archive1

Battle of Long Island

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to A-Class so any sugesstions regarding that would be appreciated.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Doncram I have major comments to make, will not state all in this first pass. I am interested in the topic of the article, and found this version very interesting to read, all the way through.

• I find it interesting that it can be asserted this was the largest battle in the war, which i did not know. Perhaps that point can be developed more later: while it makes sense to me that it was the largest up to its date, as both sides were getting geared up to fight, but why were there no comparable battles later? I suppose the answer has to do with attrition of Washington's army, with the failure of either side to concentrate forces, with the strategic decisions taken by British to divide their armies, to move some south, to divide and move others into a three pronged attack up New York State later, etc. You don't have to go into that too much in this article about this battle, but it is an interesting fact and some short summary of which its record size was not matched later would be a nice note, later in the article. If this was the largest, what was the second largest battle?
• Maps: There is one historic map in the article, and it is helpful, but it is important for the understanding of the battle to see more. I believe the article would benefit greatly from creation of several maps showing positions of troops and directions of movements, on different days. Perhaps the historic map could be used as a base and annotated. I am aware of graphics created to illustrate U.S. Civil War battles more than i am aware of them in Revolutionary war battle articles, but you should be able to find some other wikipedia battle article examples and seek help from mapmakers.
• Brooklyn Heights and other locations. The author is apparently unaware of the crucial fact that what is now known as Brooklyn Heights is not the area then known as Brooklyn Heights, which rather is a long ridge, I believe, that includes but is not limited to what is now known as Crown Heights and Prospect Heights. The current neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights is a misnamed, low-lying area along the shore, extending south from the base of the Brooklyn Bridge. See Brooklyn Heights Historic District; I think but am not 100% positive that PDF references within it show the exact boundaries of that district, which is pretty much what is understood to be Brooklyn Heights now. In Crown Heights, miles and miles away, the line of defense ran along Eastern Parkway, going east and slightly south from the location of the main Brooklyn public library at Eastern Parkway and Flatbush Avenue. I believe there is a plaque outside the library explaining and showing a map. However, it is probably not as simple as equating Brooklyn Heights with what is now known as Crown Heights. Currently, the article links to the current Brooklyn Heights neighborhood at least twice, I noticed. In some of the interesting narrative I believe it is possible that sometimes the shoreline Brooklyn Heights area might be meant. Fixing this will require good sources and perhaps local knowledge. I assume you are not local to the NYC area. I will separately ask one or two wikipedians who have taken a lot of NRHP historic sites pictures in Brooklyn if they have or could obtain a picture of that plaque outside the library, for your information if not for use in the article, and/or if they could comment here.
• Importance and miraculousness of fog and the army's escape. The article does mention the fog that covered the evacuation of Washington's army, at first in the intro and then later, but it fails to describe the immense importance of that fog, the sheer miracle of it, which I have read in other accounts. I have the impression from elsewhere that there never was fog at that time or year and that area, except that one day. I have the impression that it was terribly foolhardy for Washington to have engaged in battle at all in Long Island, or to persist there, for his entire army there could easily have been cut off by the British ships and forced eventually to surrender. I have the impression that the evacuation was within range of British ships who would easily have destroyed the entire evacuating army. I have the impression that the evacuation was nerve-wracking. Other tellings of this may have perhaps been exagerated for effect, but they certainly made an effect upon me, and this version has none of that excitement. I believe that this is really important to capture better, though of course only to the extent verifiable in good sources.
• I hope to come back and comment more later. Hope these comments help now for a good start. doncram (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I note the article does have recognition of the battle happening at different areas in Brooklyn, for example this caption: "The Battle Pass area, also known as Flatbush Pass, in the area of modern-day Prospect Park and Green-Wood Cemetery. Etching, c.1792". Also, the link to one house on the battlefield is a house in the Park Slope neighborhood. As you may recognize, these areas are far from Brooklyn Heights. I think I'll stop now. Hope my comments helped. doncram (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Charles Edward:

Very interesting article, overall very good! There is still room for improvement. Here is a few ideas:

• You say this was the largest battle of the war, I think you should probably qualify that. The largest in number of men present? Largest in number of casualties? Or by another denominator?

• Overall I give the article a B+ on copy editing, but there are a few long sentences that could be broken up, and in places the grammar could use some improvement. I would recommend you get someone who is not familiar with the text already to give it a good copy edit. You will need A+ to pass a FAC.

• You have one note in the article: "Figure indicates how many troops were on Long Island total. Only 3,000 troops were on the Guana Heights, where the British attacked." Notes like this are sometimes separated from the reference footnotes like in the article Napoleon. This may be worthwhile, especially if you intend to add anymore such notes.

• I agree with the above comment about adding maps - that is definatly needed. And also, more emphasis should be given to the amazing luck/miracle/providence that they were able to avoid total annihilation of the American army. Many histories, especially the older ones, chalk that up to divine intervention.

• Memorials may be a better term for the last section. Commemorations are typically events.

I hope these few thoughts help a bit! Charles Edward (Talk) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews. I've been quite busy lately so I havent had the time to go through and make most of the changes yet but I do apprecite the reviews and will get around to it.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Magicpiano

• This is something that Doncram touches on, but might deserve a section: an analysis of (especially Washington's) strategy and tactics. He made what I understand to be a military no-no -- dividing his forces before a numerically superior enemy. (Lee's idea of strategic retreat is covered -- did GW adopt that or a different strategy?)

• What sort of intelligence did Howe have of American troop strength and deployment? and vice versa for GW?

• In the conclusion, it says that Howe was inactive for two weeks. I doubt this. He may not have moved his forces notably, but he was probably not sitting on his hands. (That paragraph also has a runon sentence.)

Hope this help! Magic♪piano 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)