Talk:Battle of Trois-Rivières/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Specific concerns
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * Lead feels a bit skimpy. Suggest adding a sentence about the background to the battle, why were the American's in Quebec in the first place?
 * When did Sullivan take command?
 * Neither of these is enough to hold back GA status. I've taken the liberty of doing a light copyedit. The prose is still a bit clunky at places, if your goal is FAC, I strongly suggest a peer review. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive review! I know I've got a date on Sullivan's arrival somewhere, I'll put it in (that whole situation was an awful, disorganized, mess, and not all that well documented, but I know that date exists).  As for why they were there, I thought the first sentence of the second lead paragraph answered that; I can probably make it more explicit, though.  Magic ♪piano 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)