Talk:Battle of Short Hills/GA1

GA Review

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

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]