Talk:Battle of Spencer's Ordinary

Battle of Spencer's Ordinary has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 26, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Spencer's Ordinary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
wikilnik skirmish

"...and gave chase to Lafayette's, which number barely 3,000..." - a few words missing here!

"On the night of the 25 June, Wayne sent most of the advanced parties under Colonel Richard Butler, with McPherson, McCall, and Willis, to intercept Simcoe's force." - This is the first mention of advanced parties. Can you clarify what you mean here - do you mean the reinforcements, or were these advanced parties created from the larger 4,000 combined Continental force?

"McPherson, McCall, and Willis" - Who are these three? They've just been introduced into the article.

"Simcoe learned that the main force of Lafayette was not far off." - Doesn't make grammatical sense. Suggest 'Lafayette's main force' or somesuch.

"When Butler's force arrived, an infantry charge scattered the first wave into the nearby woods" - Is this a British charge, and the first wave American? This needs to be clarified.

"The charge forced Butler's men back, at which point the two forces disengaged."- You don't give a reason why they disengaged, as you do in the lede, ie that they both feared the arrival of reinforcements. This needs to be expanded upon.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A good article, perhaps slightly more rough around the edges. A few edits, and I'm sure this can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, how did introduction of the fellows involved get left out? Ah well; I have rectified that and the other items. Thanks again for your reviewing, and let me know if more is needed. Magic♪piano 02:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the new edits, looks good now. Passing! Skinny87 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic