Talk:Battle of Kemp's Landing

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kemp's Landing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "A small British fleet then took shape at Norfolk" - A minor quibble, but I'd suggest 'assembled' instead of 'took shape'

   "Navy boats sent to punish the townspeople were repulsed by Continental Army troops and militia in a brief gunfight" - Possibly it's just me, but 'gunfight' has a more modern connotation for me. Totally optional, but I'd go with 'firefight'

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "Virginia's Committee of Safety began organizing a response to Dunmore's actions." - I'm not entirely sure, from this and the succeeding text, what exactly this response was to be. Just assemble troops, or actually retaliate against Dunmore physically? Can this be expanded upon at all?

   I see 'Virginia Historical Society (1906)' in the references, but not in the citations. If it hasn't been used, best to remove it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent article, only a few very minor things needed looking at before I can pass it. Skinny87 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're enjoying your tour through the early American Revolution :). I've made some changes to address your concerns above; let me know if you need any more. Magic♪piano 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, looks good. Passing this now. Skinny87 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kemp's Landing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928172144/http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/VirginiaGazette/VGImagePopup.cfm?ID=5155&Res=HI to http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/VirginiaGazette/VGImagePopup.cfm?ID=5155&Res=HI

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)