Talk:Battle of Flint River/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian  Paul  21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

...and here it is!


 * 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:


 * 1) Under "Background", "The founding in 1670 by the English of Charles Town..." - there's got to be a way to make this sentence easier to read. It's only the second sentence of the body, but prevents the flow of the article from gaining momentum because the reader has to stop and figure it out. I find the prose a bit stilted overall, and I tried to correct this a bit, but I think that this has more to do with our having two different writing styles than there being an actual problem.
 * 2) Same paragraph, "Traders, raiders, and slavers from the new province penetrated into Spanish Florida, leading to raiding and reprisal expeditions on both sides" - using "raiders" and "raiding" in the same sentence is a bit repetitive... perhaps one of the instances could use a different word?
 * 3) In the intro, second paragraph "More than half of the Spanish-Indian force was killed or captured more than half of them" needs to be fixed.

I also feel that there's nothing really on the battle itself... there's a a lot on the lead up, but the only information about the battle itself was that there was a surprise attack that got preempted and then one side had a lot of casualties. I understand, however, that considering that even the date of the battle is unknown, that specific details about the combat itself probably aren't out there. If they are, however, it would help the article. Anyhow, the numbered concerns are the important ones and, to allow you address them, I'm putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  04:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly wish there was more to tell about the battle details, but it suffers from a lack of direct witness accounts. (No sources I've seen later than Boyd (1953) that mention this action give any sign that Uriza's report has been found, and it seems unlikely that Dodsworth filed any sort of report.)  I was actually happy to find that Spanish sources had been mined by American historians for information on this and other frontier actions (like the Apalachee massacre and the Siege of Pensacola (1707)).


 * I've made changes pursuant to your prose concerns above; let me know if more is needed.  Magic ♪piano 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, everything looks good now, so I will be passing this article as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)