Talk:Battle of Short Hills

Battle of Short Hills 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
November 23, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 25, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the 2,000 American soldiers who fought in the Battle of Short Hills against 17,000 British men suffered only minor casualties and were able to inflict considerable damage on the enemy?

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 articles

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

New Jersey Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England/Britain

The conflation of England and Britain in the "prelude" section of this article is offensive to people who are from Britain but not England 86.143.39.55 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see something like that, please feel free to remove it yourself, or replace it with the appropriate wording etc. Thanks for pointing that out. (I'll fix it soon) —A • D ^Torque 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

This article should cite the principal basic published source on the battle: "War in the Countryside - The Battle and Plunder of the Short Hills, New Jersey, June, 1777" by Frederic C. Detwiller (Plainfield, NJ: Interstate Printing Corporation, 1977) Charles H. Detwiller, architect, along with local volunteers, designed and erected the monument now standing on Raritan Road in Scotch Plains on the site of one of the encounters of June 26, 1777. 76.127.219.246 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 04:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written:
Comments
1. To be politically correct I would avoid calling United States Citizens "Americans" in the lead (that term is generally contested by other cultures on the American continents.
2. I'd suggest merging "naming" and "background" into one section. You could probably just put the "naming" line at the end of "background."
3. "Background" should be a self-sustaining section that doesn't require you to link to another article for more context. Was this in the beginning, middle or end of the war? How was the war progressing. Two short lines on these should bring a reader up to date pretty easily.
4. Prelude section: "since intelligence informed him that Howe had left behind equipment for crossing the Delaware River behind, that he was unlikely to be heading for Philadelphia." - Sentence needs rewording.
5. "British numbers forced Stirling, as determined as he was to stand against his foe," - editorializing. Please use more neutral language than "foe."
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass No problems there.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass Covers the battle.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass
It is stable:
Pass
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass
Overall:
On Hold pending a few minor things. —Ed!^(talk) 04:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this! I think I've addressed your concerns; let me know if not. Magic♪piano 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks in order. Passing GA. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]