Talk:Battle of Caloocan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * - I don't want to step on your toes here, but I just gave the article a quick skim and the link for the 20th Kansas Regiment is almost certainly incorrect - the linked article was an emergency unit mobilized for a month in 1864 that would not have carried over to the 1890s. (It was also, at least in theory, a state unit, not a United States unit, although it did serve to some extent under a United States overall commander). The 1st Nebraska link also looks wrong, as it's linked to a Civil War unit that wouldn't have carried over to the 1890s wars.  See, for instance, the distinguishment between 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (1898) and 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This issue has been corrected. Hog Farm Talk 18:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Background:
 * "American commander Arthur MacArthur Jr. made plans to dispatch a detachment of U.S. troops to launch an attack on Caloocan immediately, but was persuaded by his superior Elwell Stephen Otis to delay such a move by a few days to allow both times for additional reinforcements to be shifted into position and for Filipino forces in the region to concentrate in the Caloocan region; Otis argued that capturing Caloocan would serve the dual purpose of occupying a key settlement and trapping the Philippine Revolutionary Army in Manila Bay." is one monstrously long sentence. Suggest breaking it up - perhaps "American commander Arthur MacArthur Jr. planned to dispatch a detachment of U.S. troops and launch an attack on Caloocan immediately. His superior Elwell Stephen Otis persuaded MacArthur to delay the move by a few days to both to allow for additional reinforcements to be shifted into position and for Filipino forces in the region to concentrate in the Caloocan region. Otis argued that capturing Caloocan would serve the dual purpose of occupying a key settlement and trapping the Philippine Revolutionary Army in Manila Bay."!
 * Broke it up into three sentences, what do you think of it now? Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Battle:
 * "along with protected cruiser" what's a protected cruiser? and shouldn't this be "along with the protected cruiser"?
 * "It's a big ship with sailors, but that's not important right now." Jokes aside, a protected cruiser is a specific type of late 19th-century warship. Do you really think that information ought to be on the page? p.s. I added the "the". Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "and started to rout" retreat do you mean? Or panic. The common mean of rout is a noun, but as a verb in terms of battle it needs an object, at least according to my dictionary.
 * Reworded to retreat, what do you think of it now? Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Aftermath:
 * "once again failed to hold field fortifications against troops attacking over open ground" needs a citation on it per the Good article criteria
 * Done Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise "several Filipinos in a trench near the dummy line"
 * Done Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did the senate committee take any action against the accused officers? Issue any findings?
 * No, my source (Barnett 2010) states the senate committee took no action against the accused officers- I've amended the article to reflect this. Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a very small amount of copyediting - please double check I didn't muck things up.
 * No, your copyediting was good. Thanks. Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for reviewing another one of my GA's. I'll start going over your points right about now. Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Hi Ealdgyth, I think I've addressed all your concerns. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All those changes look great. Passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, my source (Barnett 2010) states the senate committee took no action against the accused officers- I've amended the article to reflect this. Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a very small amount of copyediting - please double check I didn't muck things up.
 * No, your copyediting was good. Thanks. Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for reviewing another one of my GA's. I'll start going over your points right about now. Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Hi Ealdgyth, I think I've addressed all your concerns. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All those changes look great. Passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)