Talk:Battle of White Plains/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead could stand to be expanded a bit. I know the article itself is short, but two sentences is a little...brief :)
   • Lead, "into Pennsylvania, from where he staged". "From where he" is rather oddly worded. Repeated in Aftermath section.

   • My issue was with the "from where", which sounded rather odd to my ears. If you are attached to it, though, it's not a big deal.

   • Background, "His troops began an unopposed". This makes it sound like they never finished. Perhaps "began with an"?
   • Background, "made another unopposed landing on Long Island on August 22, where General George Washington's Continental Army had organized significant defenses." What? There were significant organized defenses, but the landing was unopposed? I know this is the background section, so you're trying to be brief, but this sounds self-contradicting.
   • Battle, "from the British left column leading the British advance led by Johann Rall." First, repetition: British 2x, leading/led. Second, I'm really not sure what is trying to be said here.
   • Battle, "Eventually forced to retreat when Clinton's column threatened their flank, these companies retreated across the Bronx River, while fire from the troops on Chatterton Hill attacked their move." OK, if I have this right, it's the Americans who are retreating (threatened by Clinton), but why are they being fired upon by their own troops on Chatterton Hill?
   • Battle, "The British attack was organized with Hessian regiments leading the assault. Rall was to charge the American right, while a Hessian battalion under Donop (consisting of the Linsing, Mingerode, Lengereck, and Kochler grenadiers, and Donop's own chasseur regiment) was to attack the center, while a British column under General Leslie (consisting of the 5th, 28th, 35th, and 49th Foot) were to attack the right." First of all - really long sentence. Second, repetition of "..., while..., while..."
   • Legacy section. Could a bit more information be added to the ships that were named after the battle? The article isn't exactly exceeding length limits... Perhaps just something like "CVE-66 was a destroyer sunk during WWII (or whatever it was), while xxx was a yyy with fate zzz". Nothing fancy, just a little more information.

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):

   • Last I heard, forcing image sizes through pixels was not recommended, as it screwed with user preferences. It can be used to make some images bigger, as you have with the map, but a better way to do it might be "upright=1.5" (you can replace the number with whatever you want), which I believe forces the size to a multiplier of the preferences (so in this case it would be 1.5 times bigger than a normal preference size). The 100 px formatting of some of the images, especially the last one of the ship, makes them so small I can barely see them.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice little article. A few prose/MOS comments and one image issue. Once these are taken care of, this article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback; I'll get to these issues in the next few days. Magic♪piano 15:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made changes that I think address your prose and image issues. Let me know if there's anything further. Thanks! Magic♪piano 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Still a couple of minor prose things, but nothing to hold up the nom over, so I am promoting the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I tweaked the language a bit more (I think I just missed one of those)... Magic♪piano 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)