Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1689 Boston revolt

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not promoted / renominated at FAC prior to ACR consensus -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1689 Boston revolt

edit
Nominator(s): DCI2026


I am nominating this article for A-Class review for several reasons. First, it's been much expanded from the small article that I created about one year ago. I've worked on some minor edits lately - some restructuring, etc. I am not sure if this article would manage to reach FA class, so I'd like an A-class review to at least advance it to that level. I will be glad to work on more edits and restructuring if they are found necessary. DCI2026 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who did most of the expansion mentioned by DCI, I will support this effort. Magic♪piano 13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add alt text to images.
  • "on April 18, 1689, by" missing comma"
  • "to the dominion leaders rulers. Leaders" Two leaders two to each other.
  • "Andros, the commissioned governor of New England in 1686, had earned"
  • "he had infuriated"
  • second lead paragraph seems incomplete
  • "Sir Edmund Andros had was in 1686 been appointed "
  • "officers, who were put in command of colonial militia, treated" missing commas
  • "became increasingly unpopular, and also because alienated"? If not, why was he unpopular?
  • "large standing army" what's the role of standing?
  • "Increase Mather sent a letter to the king, thanking him for the declaration, and then suggested" --> "Increase Mather sent an appreciation letter to the king regarding the declaration, and then suggested
  • "Despite repeated attempts by dominion secretary Edward Randolph's repeated attempts to stop him" passive voice
  • "the old Massachusetts charter" the implies that the charter has been mentioned before, which it hasn't.
  • "The military force he led in Maine was a combination comprised of British regulars and militia from Massachusetts and Maine" note the removal of comma.
  • "gathering outside Boston at Charlestown" Charleston is a neighbourhood of Boston, in which case outside doesn't apply.
Charlestown is now a neighborhood of Boston. It was a separate community until the 19th century. This is also true of Roxbury. I have added clarifying clauses. Magic♪piano 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the 19th 19 April" check throughout article
For the article, should the MDY format or the DMY format be used when recording dates? I have made several edits changing the phrases you mentioned, but have not done anything with the date format yet. DCI2026 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to be British English it should use DMY; if American English MDY. Pick one and standardisze. Magic♪piano 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article currently uses MDY. I shall check for any British or other English variants currently used in the article, and will revise. DCI2026 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wikify "New York"?
  • Shouldn't "Lustig, p. 192" and the like have the year of publications in them? "Lustig 2002, p. 192"
I didn't add most of the books. I agree that the publication year should be a part of the citation. Will fix. DCI2026 18:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I make any changes, I'd like some more input on this - the publication years are listed on the article (under the References section), but they are not parts of the visible citations. Is this actually fine, or should I go ahead with the changes?
My rule of thumb in citations (at least in articles where I'm writing the bulk of the citations) is to only include the year if it's needed to unambiguously identify the source (like in this article). If you look at feature articles you'll see a variety of forms and practices in citation. The key (as with dates and language usage) is to be consistent in form. See also WP:CITEVAR. Magic♪piano 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the St. Augustine article and understand what you mean. So, at least for right now, we can leave out the publication year for the citations. DCI2026 19:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "Task forces" (periods and conflicts) does this come under? Remember this article isn't my strong point. Wanted to make the Military History Template complete and correct. Adamdaley (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, but there doesn't seem to be much activity here. Is there still a chance of the article being promoted? DCI2026 23:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People review when and how they like. Some people will look to see if early review issues are addressed before engaging in their own reviews. Remember that all participants here are volunteers. Lack of activity is not necessarily a problem (see how other current and past A reviews have progressed). Magic♪piano 01:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/1689_Boston_revolt&oldid=1159311839"