Talk:Battle of Bennington/GA1

GA Review

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

I think that the article generally satisfies GA criteria, although I found a few minor problems:

1. The lead contains the following words: and deprived him of needed supplies, all factors that contributed to Burgoyne's eventual surrender at Saratoga. The victory also galvanized colonial support for the independence movement, and played a role in bringing France into the war on the American side.. However this information is not present in the main text. Per WP:LEAD the lead is only a summary of the article. I think the main text should say something about consequences of this defeat.
2. The style of references is not completely consistent. For instance, you use a short note for "Bennington Battle Day" in 'Notes' section, while the full reference is spelled out in 'References' section. However, two references (to "Bennington Battlefield" and "National Register Information System") are spelled out directly in 'Notes' section.
3. The link in "Bennington Battle Day" reference is dead.
4. There are a few inconsistencies in numbers. The article says that Burgoyne sent 550 men under Heinrich von Breymann, while in the last section the number is actually 650. The article says while Warner's company of about 350 Green Mountain Boys, while in the last section I read only about 150.
5. I think the fact that August 16 is a holiday in Vermont (Bennington Battle Day) should be mentioned in the lead.

Ruslik (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I'll take care of these over the next few days. Magic♪piano 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if my changes don't adequately address your issues. I've temporized on the issue of Breymann's men; I checked 6-8 sources, without finding a reason for the discrepancy reported among them. I've left the oddity in Warner's numbers: I believe the "additional vermont rangers" constitute the difference between the order of battle and the infobox. Magic♪piano 21:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the article is passed. Ruslik (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)