Talk:64th (2nd Staffordshire) Regiment of Foot/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * 1) Citation consistency reference 1 just has the author while reference 2 has the author and book title. They all should be presented the same way.
 * Cooper has two books in the bibliography. Now used year of publication to distinguish between the two


 * 1) Reference 3 61st–63rd, 65th–70th Foot is not actually referenced
 * more a foornote than a ref but can find one


 * 1) Reference 11 needs to be formated as per the others WP:CITESHORT and the book added to the bibliography
 * done


 * 1) What makes http://www.britishbattles.com/bunker-hill.htm a reliable source
 * what makes it an unreliable source? The page quotes several works on the war History of the British Army by Sir John Fortescue and The War of the Revolution by Christopher Ward.  Found an online copy of Fortescue so swapped ref to that.


 * 1) Reference 20 needs to be formated as per the others WP:CITESHORT and the book added to the bibliography
 * 2) Reference 35 what makes http://www.lightinfantry.org.uk/ a reliable source and it appears to link to the wrong page. Its also shown as blacklisted on the link checker tool.
 * deadlink - removed


 * 1) Reference 40 needs to be formated as per the others WP:CITESHORT and the book added to the bibliography
 * 2) Same with reference 43
 * 3) Reference 51 consistency the date is written as Retrieved 10-04-2009 all the others are written as Retrieved 30 July 2009
 * Fixed - changed template to Cite Hansard


 * 1) In the formation section there is nothing about the size of the battalion any problems they had recruiting
 * None of the sources list anything on this


 * 1) In the seven years war section 137 other ranks out of an establishment strength of 790 were fit for duty - is there anything for the officer numbers
 * Yes, text and ref added


 * 1) As unrest grew the 64th took place in an incident which lays a claim to the first blood of the American War of Independence being shed in Salem, Massachusetts and not Lexington - theres no suggestion previos to this that the first blood was shed at Lexington, needs clarification.
 * removed last bit of sentences. Now ends after in Salem, Mass.


 * 1) On 26 February 1775 a supply of weapons and ammunition was known to be in Salem - how
 * all part of same incident but added additional ref to Commager


 * 1)  the 64th were the last regiment for Halifax, giving them the distinction of being the last British unit to set foot in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - were the last regiment to leave for Halifax ? and have no British units set foot in Massachusetts since ?
 * added during the war. to end sentence.


 * 1) after the first mutiny - first rebellion consensus has it the mutiny is POV depending upon what side you support
 * unrest ok?


 * 1) Drummer Thomas Flinn is linked but a brief mention of why he was awarded the Victoria Cross
 * Done



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) 09:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed everything. NtheP (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Passed GA Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)