Talk:Battle of Sullivan's Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBattle of Sullivan's Island 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 28, 2012, June 28, 2016, June 28, 2018, June 28, 2021, and June 28, 2023.

RfC: Is "The battle's pain" section relevant?[edit]

The "The battle's pain" section on this page appears to be an unrelated narrative; it has little or no relation to the facts of the battle.

The section is essentially an personal essay, and, in my view, quite unencyclopedicἲὶῌ. I recommend it be deleted from the article - I'd do it myself right now, but wouldn't want to pre-empt the result of the RfC. Anaxial (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so hesitant; it's gone. --Richard (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for move?[edit]

This action is conventionally known by "Battle of Sullivan's Island" -- this name is what is used in history books. Can the move of this article to "Action of June 28, 1776" please be supported here by citations to relevant and reliable sources? Magic♪piano 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Is there a place of publication for Stokely's book?
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Link the British regiments.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
I took care of these things; thanks for taking time to do the review! Magic♪piano 21:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]