Talk:Boston campaign/GA2

GA Review

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

I'm going to have a quick few one nitpicks for you, which you'll need anyway if you go for A-class.

• Just checking--all of those refs that come at the end of paragraphs cover the entire paragraph, right?
  • As a rule, yes. Particularly in this article, since it's (as you say) a summary, you can see that many of the cites reference at least two pages, and often more, of the source work. Some of the authors (Fischer and Frothingham especially) are incredibly detailed. (For example, Fischer devotes 12 pages, including maps, to describing other "powder alarms" and seizures, which I summarize in two sentences. Maybe when I get around to promoting Powder Alarm you can read more about them. :) ) Magic♪piano 16:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright then, good work. PASS! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, I'm going to pass this per my comments in the first review. :) Though it is on the short side, it's just supposed to be summaries of all the battles, not detailed accounts! Great work. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

DNB referencing

I was looking into the two references Stephen (1886), with a view to replacing these with direct links to DNB articles at Wikisource. The one to pages 340 and 341 is OK, because in the indicated vol.7 of the Google Books this is the start of the article for John Burgoyne. The other one is puzzling, because it is to p. 550 and the book has only about 450 pages. A check on the intended ref, please. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing now. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)