Talk:Battle of Spencer's Ordinary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 20:29, 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):

   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.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

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)