Talk:Benedict Arnold/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)

It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet
1. Links should only appear once in the prose. I see several links that appear more than once. Please go through the article and cut down on repeated links, per WP:OVERLINK.
2. "(which left his left leg 2 inches (5 cm) shorter than the right)," - How did this happen? Was the leg partially amputated? Explain it for the reader.
3. The first sentence of the "death" section needs a ref, and also a date. When did he first become afflicted with Gout?
4. With only one link, the "See also" section should be either expanded or removed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Not Yet
1. "He presided over the rear of the Continental Army during its retreat from Saint-Jean, where he was reported to be the last person to leave before the British arrived." - reported by who? needs a ref.
2. "...following a series of escalating disagreements and disputes that culminated in a shouting match, removed him from field command after the first battle." - Needs a ref.
3. "...engaging in a variety of business deals designed to profit from war-related supply movements and benefiting from the protection of his authority." - Needs a ref.
4. "...that he owed the Congress some £1,000, largely because he was unable to document them." - Needs a ref.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass No problems there.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Not Yet
1. "Arnold was ambitious and aggressive, and quickly expanded his business." - sounds kind of opinionated, it needs a ref.
2. " The oppressive taxes levied by Parliament forced many New England merchants out of business." - calling it 'oppressive' is also opinionated; the word should be avoided, or the sentence should be referenced.
3. "...Arnold began scheming to capitalize financially on the change in power there" - 'scheming' is not a neutral word. It should be replaced.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Not Yet
1. Images are heavily weighted towards the right of the page. Reviewers for A and FA articles often suggest making the balence even and alternating, ie. placing images on the left, then right, then left, then right, etc.
Overall:
On Hold while issues are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your detailed comments. I think I've addressed most of your issues. I'm not sure what repeated links you're finding -- I do repeat links in the lead and image captions, something no one has complained about before. (There might, as always, be one or two that slip through, but it would probably be easier for you to fix the ones you saw -- I wasn't able to find them.) Magic♪piano 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. The issues have been addressed to my satisfaction. Looking over the article again I don't see any repeated links, maybe I imagined them or something. The article now meets GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless this hero of human kind

This guy was about being a saint... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.8.45 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, really? So, do you have anything to back this up, or do you just say ridiculous things to be inflamatory? Jersey John (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet troll. Was clever and annoying 15 years ago, now just redundant and old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]