Talk:Battle of Fort Cumberland (1776)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The "Shepody" section is awfully short to have its own header. I recommend it be merged into the previous section, or at least become a subhead of that section. The same goes for the "legacy" section. Fixed I have combined the smaller sections.
   2. With only one external link, I would also say that the External Links section is somewhat small. I would recommend adding additional links or removing the section entirely. Added a few more.
   3. The last line of the "Aftermath" section seems somewhat abrupt. Increased naval presence frusterated American privateering, and Americans used to conduct raid with impunity...then what? The consequences should be clearer, such as "American privateers subsequently conducted far fewer raids in the region" with a ref. Connect the dots for the reader. Removed On reflection and research, the effect was quite limited, and not really worth mentioning.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "...but also by cowing those that remained, often by forcing people to make pledges to the Crown." - Needs a ref. Done (also temporized "forcing" to "requiring").
   2. "...John Allan was authorized by Congress to take actions in Nova Scotia; however, only a small number of forces were raised for this effort, and a British show of force put an end to the attempt." - Also needs a ref. Done
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold while a few minor nitpicks are sorted out. —Ed!^(talk) 01:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the road, with limited internet access. I'll get to these things Tuesday-Wednesday next week when I'm home. Thanks for the detailed review. Magic♪piano 13:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if my changes don't address your concerns... Magic♪piano 20:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough. The article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)