Talk:Battle of Fort Anne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Fort Anne 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.
Good topic star Battle of Fort Anne is part of the Saratoga campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 14, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
March 6, 2010 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Fort Anne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
  2. Fix up the lead. Four paragraphs per se, should be merged to make 2. Reduced to 3
  3. ¾ mile (1 km) north of the fort. <- Try for 0.75 mi. Fixed
  4. About 600 men under Colonel Long... <-- Check something here - Do we know Long's first name? Fixed
  5. It has been claimed that a flag was flown at Fort Anne that may have been the first instance of a flag consisting of stars and stripes; this claim is probably false. <--- Supposedly false, "possibly false" is leaning POV. Changed
  6. Are we sure its spelled Skenesboro? (I pertain to say you mean the Whitehall, NY one) Most things these days seem to give it a different spelling. Comment See below.
    B. MoS compliance:
  7. Battle & Skirmish - merge together? Both are very short.
  8. Skirmish - merge first two paragraphs. Done
  9. After Pursuit, the wikilink amount seems to drop big time, can these be fixed? Not sure what you expect
  10. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
  11. There are no references online and/or outside of Google Books? Comment see below
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  12. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  13. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  14. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  15. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
  16. Article looks bland without some.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  17. The article could use some more descriptive images or people's portraits. Comment see below.
  18. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments:

See above. I think this article is getting there, but it isn't Good Article yet. Its on hold, but i have some concerns.Mitch/HC32 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Skenesboro: I've seen this spelled primarily this way or "Skenesborough". Occasionally (in transcriptions of letters and dispatches) I see "Skeensborough" or similiar. The place was the estate of Philip Skene, a prominent Loyalist.
  • Images: None of the players directly involved in this action were imaged, to my knowledge. I could put images of e.g. Burgoyne and Schuyler, but I think this is stretching it. (As far as I know, the battlefield isn't even preserved, so even something like a photo of the site is not much of an option.) I agree that the article could use at least one more image, but this shouldn't be a bar to GA.
  • Citations: This is a relatively minor event overshadowed by more important events, and is poorly documented (see the lack of consistency in casualty numbers, and endnote 2 on troop strengths for indicators of this) and often incorrectly summarized (some historians recount that Hill was leading the entire 9th). I do try to use online resources when they are reliable; I find remarkably few reliable resources (and plenty of unreliable ones) on Revolutionary War subjects. Books by respected historians work (I can sometimes find some of their sources in Google Books or other online resources), and Ketchum at least is widely available in public libraries. I apologize if this means you have to visit a library if you want to do a more thorough check of my sources.
  • Wikilinks: I've added a few, but I'm not sure what else to add. (I've gotten dinged for WP:OVERLINK for linking the sorts of terms that are left.)
Thanks for your review and feedback. Magic♪piano 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy[edit]

In the Aftermath section. Serious question should be raised on the "delivery to such a remote location render the story implausible" statement.


On June 14, 1777, in order to establish an official flag of the new nation, the Continental Congress passed the first Flag Act: "Resolved, that the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation." http://www.usflags.com/usflaghistory.aspx

  • allow 19 days for delivery without even a horse at ~3.02MPH

means it could have made it there in under 100 hours. On the other hand, he could have walked it to Philadelphia, PA then to Columbus, OH; Ottawa, ON, Canada to Montpelier, VT where he can grab a bite, use the privy and have a smoke and still have time to get to Fort Ann with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D12Blame (talkcontribs) 22:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

British Decisive win? doubtful. Win? seriously. The mission of van Rensselaer and Long was to slow British advance and stall them at Fort Anne. Their mission was not to overtake the British nor were they defeated by the British. Ammunition on both sides wound up nearly exhausted but, it was the British who went into retreat leaving their wounded to get captured by those who remained there to collect them and take them prisoner. Even to say it was a draw is being quite generous to the British especially when you consider the fact that those who collected prisoners were cutting down trees and confounding British advance (were they to attempt it). D12Blame (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusing reference[edit]

Maybe I have short eyeballs or glanced too quickly but the reference to what flags were found seem devoid of anything useful. it could be as simple as the reference pages displayed are different than the actual pages printed on the page itself? An assertion is being made that is totally unsubstantiated by the reference as it appears.D12Blame (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)