Talk:2nd Canadian Regiment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Just a few minor issues that need improvement

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose is generally good, though could benefit from a light copyedit before FAC

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
For months/dates directly after one another, you don't need to repeat the year. If you've just mentioned July 1776 you don't need to write the next one as August 1776, simply as "August"
Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
One issues with the "references" section. Websites generally shouldn't be used in that section (unless it's online books), but cited directly as footnotes. Also, I think some of them (like "Military Campaign") should likely be external links as well.
I've moved the unused refs to external links. Magic♪piano 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Could the "strength" and "casualties" sections be merged and put in a form that isn't simply a list/bullet-point style? Failing that, a combined list could also work for either.
I've converted these to tables. Magic♪piano 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
I think there's some instances where stuff that's under independent headers should be incorporated into the larger sections. The ones that stand out: Winter 1782-83 with the previous section, Winter 1778-79 with previous section, Winter Quarters 1777-78 with previous section
This should be better now. Magic♪piano 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
fix the few issues above and I'll be more than happy to pass it.

I would like to point out (having worked to improve the text of this article more than its sourcing), that a number of the sources currently used are not all that reliable. A link to a historical marker description? What makes revwar75.com reliable (or rootsweb)? Citing the BBC for the Battle of Brandywine?

Another point that is perhaps less visible than it ought to be is the assertion at CONGRESSOWN.jpg that the flag at the head of this article may not be a proper representation of the regimental standard. This assertion was added by an anonymous IP, but I have no sourcing to either confirm or deny the flag's accuracy. Magic♪piano 20:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the flag image down, and tempered its authenticity. Magic♪piano 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. The Structure and MoS stuff have been fixed. That said, the sourcing issues brought up by Magicpiano (thank-you btw. I haven't done one of these in a fair while, and the review structure still baffles me and causes me to miss stuff. ACRs are much easier!) have yet to be fixed. Fix those and I'll be happy to pass. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll fix the cite tags and replace the bad refs hopefully soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to cite most of them, and hid anything remaining that I could not. All that's left to do is fix any sources that aren't good. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is finally fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding Wizardman's statement, I think everything is closer to fixed now, and probably worth Climie's look now. Magic♪piano 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]