Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Siege of Boston

Siege of Boston

Another editor moved this article through GA in August. I've been working on it since (mostly adding details and working on citations and prose). I'm looking for feedback on readiness for A-class review and possibly FA.

Some specific questions:

1. The section on Bunker Hill is relatively short, but that action is they key of the affair. Should it be expanded?
2. There is no analysis of the participants' actions -- what strategic and tactical steps were good or bad. Should there be?

Thanks for your feedback. -- Magic♪piano 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the_ed17

• Quick image comments - only two things per WP:MOSIMAGE:
  • No images under third-level headings ("Digging in" section) Y Moved
  • Sandwiching text between images ("Stalemate" section) YMoved (this had been on my list too).

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• References comment - they look perfect. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the third-level sections in "Aftermath" are kinda short. Anyway to lengthen or combine them? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I left those that way in part because I'm wondering (above) if the whole Aftermath/Legacy should include a critical analysis. There was a lot of blame, criticism, and Monday-morning quarterbacking to go around, especially on the British side (surprise). (The colonials were mostly somewhat disorganized, which didn't always help their cause. They probably could have held Bunker Hill if they were better organized.) Some of the histories get into this, which is why I'm considering including some of it.

If I were to do that, I'd probably take the mopping-up and reentering the city into the End of Siege section, and merge much of the "Fate of" bits into the critical discussion. -- Magic♪piano 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would say to add it in, as long as you include a lead-in of "Contemporary historians believe that..." or something of the like. That's just my opinion though - you may want to wait for another MILHIST editor to review this and add his/her opinion to this before starting a large addition like that... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)