Talk:Battle of Green Spring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Green Spring 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.
September 18, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Virginia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Copyvio revert[edit]

I think rather than erasing the entire article because it came from another article, it should be rewritten with the article listed as a source. Thoughts? --Awiseman 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To the extent the copy is of Federal Government origin, it's Public Domain, but a rewrite with more sourcing would be an improvement. More of a skirmish than a battle though. Pohick2 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer:Ed!(talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    On Hold
    1. "In an action that many considered confirmation of the epithet "Mad"..." Who? This statement should be referenced.
      • Well, to a first approximation, it is referenced -- by the cite at the end of the sentence. I believe this is more-or-less what the Wickwires claimed. I think they meant contemporary opinion, but did not go into detail; I'll have to check. I know that Nelson has some interesting contemporary quotes (as opposed to quotes by historians or biographers) that specifically use words like "mad" and "madness", so I can probably rewrite that bit. Magic♪piano 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I've rearranged this, and added some more relevant commentary. Magic♪piano 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    2. In the battle section, you talk a lot about what Wayne and Lafayette were during the battle. Where was Cornwallis? Did he observe the battle from a remote location or was he with his troops?
      • Sources generally don't say where Cornwallis was, except to note that he led the countercharge. Magic♪piano 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    3. Are there any ideas on what time the battle began? It's hard to tell until the very end of the battle section any idea of what time things happened.
      • Added more time indicators. Magic♪piano 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    4. You should expand the lead a little to include information from the Aftermath and Legacy sections. This will make the lead summarize the whole article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass
  5. It is stable:
    Pass
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass
  7. Overall:
    Oh Hold while a few minor things are fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review; I think I've addressed your concerns. Magic♪piano 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)