Talk:Cornwallis in North America

Cornwallis in North America 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
December 29, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: Biography / British / European / 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:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cornwallis in North America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Notjamesbond (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Although the article deals with most of the MOS guidelines, the introductory lead cites no references. As the rest of the article is very well sourced I hope it would be no problem to add the relevant sources within this section.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The article is very well referenced but all from books so cannot be verified easily. However the references all adhere to the style guidelines and the books are relevant to the subject. I would say that due to the accuracy of the referencing there would be very little chance of these references being unreliable. Two of the book references lacked ISBN numbers but I added these.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article covers the subject of Cornwallis North American career in some detail and just needs some of the sourcing to be added to the introduction so that it meets the lead guidelines

As far as I know (and WP:LEADCITE is not really helpful on this point) citations are not required in the lead except for controversial or contentious statements. Everything in the lead is in the body, where it is cited. This has never been an issue in any of my previous (40 or so) GA candidates or articles I've moved through FAC. If you think some lead statements are particularly controversial or contentious, I'll be happy to cite those. Magic♪piano 01:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see your point. I understand that everything in the lead is in the body my point was only a minor one based on my perception of the guidelines as it's obvious that all the references are there. Upon reading again I can see that actually the article intro does looks like it meets the criteria and am happy to recommend this article for GA status Notjamesbond (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]