Talk:Battle of Green Spring/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Magicpiano in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer:Ed!(talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    On Hold
    1. "In an action that many considered confirmation of the epithet "Mad"..." Who? This statement should be referenced.
      • Well, to a first approximation, it is referenced -- by the cite at the end of the sentence. I believe this is more-or-less what the Wickwires claimed. I think they meant contemporary opinion, but did not go into detail; I'll have to check. I know that Nelson has some interesting contemporary quotes (as opposed to quotes by historians or biographers) that specifically use words like "mad" and "madness", so I can probably rewrite that bit. Magic♪piano 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    2. In the battle section, you talk a lot about what Wayne and Lafayette were during the battle. Where was Cornwallis? Did he observe the battle from a remote location or was he with his troops?
    3. Are there any ideas on what time the battle began? It's hard to tell until the very end of the battle section any idea of what time things happened.
    4. You should expand the lead a little to include information from the Aftermath and Legacy sections. This will make the lead summarize the whole article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass
  5. It is stable:
    Pass
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass
  7. Overall:
    Oh Hold while a few minor things are fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking the time to review; I think I've addressed your concerns. Magic♪piano 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply