Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island

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.

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

This order of battle is the last in a fairly long line of articles I've improved that are part of the New York and New Jersey campaign of the American Revolutionary War. It's the second order of battle I've prepared for eventual feature list consideration; the other was Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton, which passed FLC in July and is the only land-battle order of battle that is currently a featured list. I hope it meets with your approval.

One obvious question reviewers might address is whether a slightly longer battle summary should be provided. Magic♪piano 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The quote has questionable encyclopedic value (at least, I have heard this reservation before). JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are enough objections to it (any Brits with strong feelings on this?), it can obviously be pulled... Thanks for your support. Magic♪piano 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't say I feel strongly about it from a nationalistic perspective (!), but an anonymous quote without any context isn't telling me much of value. If the preceding paragraph explained a little about why the quote is historically important, of course, it might be quite interesting. Support, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the quote does immediately follow a paragraph describing the wiping out of most of a regiment. I'll see if there are any useful attributions for the quote. Magic♪piano 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My experience, admittedly, is a bit dated. One of my original articles made heavy use of quotes underneath section headers, and these were deemed unencyclopedic. The original T-34 article also made use of quotes, and I believe these have been since removed from the text. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As best I can tell (still looking for a more reliable source...) the quote is echoing a similar sentiment expressed in text that is on a plaque commemorating the battle, and appears to be first recorded by Gallagher. link for plaque text Magic♪piano 15:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the absence of better sourcing for a better quote, I've pulled the quote. Magic♪piano 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by Dana Boomer

~~The lead seems short. Are the requirements for leads in order of battle articles the same as for normal articles/lists?~~

Beatson is in notes but not references.

British and Hessien forces, "The second was new levies". I've only ever heard of levies being used to raise taxes: "a tax was levied". Is there an article/wiktionary link that you could link to about the use of levies meaning "to raise troops"?

~~Same section, "The expedition's attempt to occupy..., and was afterward sent north". This may be grammatically correct (I'm not really sure), but it feels very awkward.~~
I have no problem with the quote, although it would be nice if it were able to be specifically attributed to someone (especially someone important!).

Other than that, it looks good. Once these are taken care of, I will be happy to support this for A-class. Dana boomer (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback; I've addressed the middle three. I've not seen any specific guidance on the length of the lead for this sort of article, but I can certainly add another paragraph. (I'm still working on a solid source for the plaque text as a replacement for the anonymous quote.) Magic♪piano 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've extended the lead with a second paragraph. Magic♪piano 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, so I've changed to support. One last thing I saw, in the lead it says "The Americans had set up defenses all along New York's harbor, which were". I realize that the "which" is refering to the defenses, not the harbor, but it could be read either way. Would it be possible to reword this? Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased this. Magic♪piano 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~: Largely looks fine to me, I only have a few nitpicks:
- no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
- image appears correctly licenced (no action required);
- I think that generally section headings are only fully capitalised if they are proper nouns. As such I'm not certain about the presentation of the heading "American Army". Wasn't the proper name "Continental Army"? If so either the heading should be "American army", or "Continental Army", or you might even consider "American forces" to keep it similar to "British and Hessian forces" above;
- ~~in the References section, is there a publishing location for the Smith work? Currently it is the only one without it;~~ AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback; I've made changes to address these. I didn't want to use "Continental Army" because not all of the units involved were "on the establishment" of that organization; I've changed it to "American forces". Magic♪piano 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2010 (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.