Talk:Battle of Ridgefield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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:

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. I've addressed some of your concerns, and have responses to the remaining ones.

In re the Ludington sources: Johnson is used to cite the comparison to Paul Revere, the rest of the sentence (while confirmed by Johnson) is cited from Cook. (If you're going to question sources, I find even recent sources that collect these sorts of stories to be somewhat unreliable, regardless of who the publisher is. Johnson is probably no more or less reliable than Cook, despite being self-published. Both provide something resembling a bibliography, which is, in my opinion, a key differentiator between reliable and unreliable sources for this sort of material.)
In re your many cn tags: it is not my practice (nor do I believe it to be a necessary condition to pass GA) to cite every sentence. All of the things that are tagged as of this writing are adequately cited by the next citation in the paragraph. (I have recast and cited the tags in which I agree needed citation.) If you think any of the sentences you've tagged are somehow controversial or contentious, I'll be happy to replicate the necessary cites on them; it's not at all clear to me why you chose those sentences and not others that are not ended by a cite. Magic♪piano 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe they are adequately cited but if they cite further into the pargraphs cover them it should be easy to rectify by using ref name.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my last sentence in more detail. Why, for example, are the first three sentences of the Legacy section "adequately cited", and the first three sentences of the Background are not? (This is a serious question: how do you decide what is "adequately cited"?) Magic♪piano 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the section in question. In the first two years of the American Revolutionary War, the state of Connecticut had not been the scene of conflict, even though neighboring Massachusetts was where the war began in April 1775, and New York City was taken by the British in a campaign in the fall of 1776.[citation needed] how do we know there was no conflict in the state and that New York was taken in 1776 without a cite

Major General William Howe, commanding the British forces in New York, drafted a plan for 1777 whose primary goal was the taking of the rebel capital, Philadelphia.[citation needed] how do we know if was a primary goal its not cited

Troops left to defend New York were to include a brigade of 3,000 provincial troops under the command of the former royal governor of New York, William Tryon, who was promoted to major general in spring 1777.[citation needed] Promotion need a cite

I would have added these tags even if it was not in a GA review. If your not happy you can always ask for a second opinion. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do please get a second opinion. These facts are already cited. Why must the cite be at the end of those sentences, and not at the end of the other sentences I asked about? Magic♪piano 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry how can we know a cite somewhere else in the article covers the statement ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read downward to the next citation. This doesn't answer my question, by the way. Are you saying that you accept the Legacy sentences even though they are, according to your apparent definition of the term, completely uncited? Magic♪piano 20:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim and Magicpiano. How about a compromise solution? In the Background section, if the three sentences that have been tagged are covered by Citation # 7 (Nelson (1990), p. 150), I'd suggest that a citation (namedref) could be added after "1776" and then removing the two other citation needed tags. In the Danbury section, if the four sentences that have been tagged are covered by Citation # 14 (Bailey (1896), p. 61), I'd suggest adding a citation after the first sentence (ending in "Norwalk") and removing the other three citation needed tags. This would probably make it clearer that all this information is covered by the same citation. Just a suggestion, though, of course. What do you think of this? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a good suggestion, do you agree Magicpiano ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an acceptable compromise; thanks, Rupert. I will implement soon; I decided to double-check some of the sourcing in these areas, and have some further changes/additions to make as a result. Magic♪piano

I've made these changes. I've cited the first sentence in the background differently; as I suspected, Nelson did not support that. Magic♪piano 00:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done now passed.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]