Talk:Battle of Saint-Pierre/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the lead you say they are "Canadien militia", in the infobox they are "Canadian militia" (note the spelling difference of Canadian). Please standardize this. The spelling also jumps back and forth throughout the article, being "Canadian" in the Background section and "Canadien" in the "Loyalist militia recruitment" section. Fixed
 * In the lead, "some of which both sides had recruited from the same communities." is awkwardly phrased. Please try to reword this. Rephrased
 * In the Loyalist section, it says "crossed the Saint Lawrence River by canoe and reached the city." I'm assuming you mean the city of Quebec, but please make this explicit. Fixed
 * The second paragraph of the Aftermath section is a run-on sentence that is grammatically awkward.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a quite a few works listed in the References section that are not used in either the Citations or the Notes section. These include the 1885 Brymner ref, the Codman ref and others. These should either be used in in-line citations (see my notes about completeness below), moved to the further reading section, or removed altogether.
 * The Citations section should be standardized so that it refers to all works by their author, which is the way that the works are listed in the References section. The DCB biography articles are listed by their titles in the Citations section, which makes them more difficult to find in the References section. Fixed
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Due to the number of works that are listed in the References section that are not used, and considering the shortness of the article in general, I am led to wonder about the coverage of the article. Is there information in the un-used works that would be of benefit to this article?
 * 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:
 * Overall this is a nice little article. I have a few comments on prose, references and coverage, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this is a nice little article. I have a few comments on prose, references and coverage, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In re the number of sources: this action is, in most treatments of the Canadian invasion, treated sketchily at best. Canadian English-language sources like Stanley may give the incident one paragraph, in which no or few names are mentioned.  Lanctot (a translation of a French history) actually gives the incident roughly two pages, identifying a number of the major players (many only by last name), but does not identify, for example, who Ayotte and Gosselin worked for, or who Blais, Couillard and Gaspé were (beyond being Beaujeu's captains).   Those sorts of details are hidden in the brief descriptions of the incident contained in the other sources, or the biographies.  (This article was at times a real sleuthing project.)


 * I've moved (or removed) the sources that are no longer actually used. Those that remain that do not have citations are mentioned in the notes.


 * Let me know if more needs to be done...  Magic ♪piano 14:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, everything looks good. I addressed the last issue (the run-on sentence) myself, so I think everything has been taken care of. This being the case, I am now passing this article to GA status. Very nice work on this little "sleuthing project"! Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)