Talk:Angus McDonald (Virginia militiaman)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 03:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one within the week. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Three of the paragraphs start with the word "McDonald" - variety would improve the article.
 * wl Scottish Highlanders
 * wl Native American here instead of in the Early colonial military career section
 * wl Charles Mynn Thruston
 * I've switched the wording around to avoid repeating McDonald at the beginning of each paragraph in the lead. I've also wiki-linked the above terms. Please let me know if you see any other opportunities for improvement here! -- Caponer (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Early colonial military career
 * George Washington - overlink
 * "While in Winchester, McDonald served as a member of the Committee of Safety there." - Is "there" necessary?
 * "Autumn of 1758" and "Spring of 1774": per MOS:SEASON, switch to lc.
 * I've removed the additional links to George Washington, and removed "there." I switched autumn to lower case, and I've changed the second season to "early 1774." -- Caponer (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * McDonald's Expedition and Dunmore's War
 * lieutenant colonel - overlink
 * nightfall - don't think it needs to be wl
 * "burning of Shawnee cabins and villages and the destruction of their plantations and maize fields" - reword the sentence if possible to avoid and/and/and
 * Removed overlink from lieutenant colonel and de-linked nightfall. I split the Shawnee sentence into two to avoid the extra use of and. -- Caponer (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * American Revolutionary War
 * lieutenant colonel - overlink
 * George Washington - overlink
 * Colonel - overlink
 * battalion - overlink
 * I've remedied the over linking from all the above words. -- Caponer (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well-written. I won't put it on hold as there are only a few comments. As I'm busy with different things, please ping me when you're ready for me to look at the article again. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you tremendously for taking the time to review this article, and leaving your suggestions to improve it. I've addressed all the above comments, so please let me know if you have any further guidance. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks Rosiestep! It was a pleasure working with you throughout this review process. -- Caponer (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)