Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewint this article for GA. Although it is potentially a fascinating article, I find reading through it quite confusing, what with three general Clintons and two forts. Although the lead is very clear as to what happened, when I try to follow the text in the body of the article, it becomes confusing.

  • I wish the article were more accessible to the lay person who may not know that much about American and British history.
    • Are you referring here to the strategic importance of this part of the Hudson (i.e. why it is important) or are you looking for more general background, like the strategic thinking behind Burgoyne's campaign?
  • Did I miss it, or is Fort Clinton named after one of the Clintons in the article, or another Clinton? (The Fort Clinton articles says it was commanded by James Clinton but I didn't read the article to find out if that was just a coincidence or what.)
    • After checking a few sources, the most likely candidate for naming honors was George, the governor. I'll add something on that (and of course who Fort Montgomery was named for).
  • For example, on section starts out: "On the foggy morning of October 6, Clinton landed " - it is not immediately clear which Clinton this is.
    • I see you fixed this.
  • I have made some copy editing changes in the article to try to provide context and wikilinks for some of the content but feel free to make changes.
    • Your changes look fine so far.
  • In the lead it seems straight forward why the two forts are combined into one article, but trying to figure out the body of the text it becomes less clear. Perhaps you should not have separate sections in the article for the two forts.
    • I'm confused -- the battle section covers the division of the British troops and the separate attacks. The main thing missing is a description of Clinton's planning (i.e. the strategy he planned to execute).
  • I changed some passive voices in the lead, but there is still a passive voice sentence there. It is best if you can remove all passive voice, especially in the lead.
    • Agreed; passive voice should be avoided.
  • Otherwise, this is an interesting article and you seem to have a good grasp of the subject matter.
    • Thanks! I been edicatin' meself. :)
  • (Your pictures help, but many may be like me and look at the pictures last to sort things out.)
    • Would an extract of a map similar to this one (which I clipped for the Canadian campaign) help? I can clip from the same source map a similar narrow strip from Albany (or Saratoga) down to NYC.

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will place the article on hold for seven days. Hopefully I will hear from you and we can get a dialog going. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for responding. The article looks much improved, and I will read it through again but I forsee no problems. Maps always help in orienting the reader, I think. This article is discussing events on very narrow terrain, for someone not familiar with the area in question in North America. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The addition of the map appears to cause layout problems. In Firefox, the pullquote overlaps the text, and appears in the section "Battle" instead of "British movements" in wide screen, although in a smaller screen it looks fine. In IE7 there is a huge white spaces under "Background" and "American defenses" in both wide and narror screens. I don't know what to suggest. The map is helpful but appears to cause disruption. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Clearly written in an interesting style b (MoS): Follows the relevant MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers the major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Passes GA - Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Forts_Clinton_and_Montgomery/GA1&oldid=1084063618"