Talk:Battle of Spencer's Ordinary
Appearance
![]() | Battle of Spencer's Ordinary has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Spencer's Ordinary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- wikilnik skirmish
- "...and gave chase to Lafayette's, which number barely 3,000..." - a few words missing here!
- "On the night of the 25 June, Wayne sent most of the advanced parties under Colonel Richard Butler, with McPherson, McCall, and Willis, to intercept Simcoe's force." - This is the first mention of advanced parties. Can you clarify what you mean here - do you mean the reinforcements, or were these advanced parties created from the larger 4,000 combined Continental force?
- "McPherson, McCall, and Willis" - Who are these three? They've just been introduced into the article.
- "Simcoe learned that the main force of Lafayette was not far off." - Doesn't make grammatical sense. Suggest 'Lafayette's main force' or somesuch.
- "When Butler's force arrived, an infantry charge scattered the first wave into the nearby woods" - Is this a British charge, and the first wave American? This needs to be clarified.
- "The charge forced Butler's men back, at which point the two forces disengaged."- You don't give a reason why they disengaged, as you do in the lede, ie that they both feared the arrival of reinforcements. This needs to be expanded upon.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
A good article, perhaps slightly more rough around the edges. A few edits, and I'm sure this can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, how did introduction of the fellows involved get left out? Ah well; I have rectified that and the other items. Thanks again for your reviewing, and let me know if more is needed. Magic♪piano 02:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the new edits, looks good now. Passing! Skinny87 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class Virginia articles
- Low-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- GA-Class American Revolutionary War articles
- American Revolutionary War task force articles