Talk:Burning of Falmouth/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Lead, P1, S2: It is the fleet, I presume? After the discussion of the towns Falmouth, it's not clear.
   • Background, P1, S1: Not sure what the sentence is saying… is there a missing word before supplied? Also, it would be helpful to reiterate exactly who was besieging them.
   • Sailing to Falmouth, P1, S2: Where is Cape Ann (any link?) and are there really harbors (plural) there?
   • Attack, P1 & P2: At the end of P1 Mowat says "the body of the town is in one flame", but at the beginning of P2 he thinks it inadequate. Is there any explanation why?
   • Attack, P2, S1: Maybe use set fire to instead of fire (as a verb) here for accessibility?
   • Aftermath, P2, S1: Why did his career suffer? Sure from a modern perspective it sounds barbaric, up to this point in the article there's no condemnation of it mentioned.
   • Damage assessment, P1, S1: Using "Up to" with a very specific number, 417, sounds a little strange. If there's uncertainty in the historical record, maybe it should say "At least 417" or "Over 400" depending on how the info is stated in sources
   • Political reaction, P2, S4: "His orders" here is unclear to me. Is it orders he issued, or orders issued to him?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   A lot of recent activity, but seems to be copy-edit related and in no way an edit war or any such thing

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:

I think this is a fine article, with just a minor prose issues that need to be resolved before it passes. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done what I can to address/clarify some of the prose issues outlined above. Haploidavey (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've covered the rest, except for the issue of Mowat's career. I believe that Mowat's career was frustrated by (1) the barbarity of the act, and (2) the fact that the act had the opposite of its intended effect (even if he was just following orders). Are you saying it's not a reasonable conclusion from the article that this is the case? (I can probably dig into this further, but is it an issue to hold up the review for?)

I'll also note that Cape Ann (now linked) does in fact have several harbors (all four towns have harbors, I believe, and may have in colonial times), even under the strict definition. If you liberalize the definition, it can be stretched to include the harbors of Salem, Massachusetts and Marblehead, Massachusetts. Magic♪piano 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The changes all look good. As far as Cape Ann is concerned, I was thinking of a settlement rather than a geographic feature; I mostly wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo. And, I think moving the paragraph about Mowat's career farther down helps a great deal. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)