Talk:Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I can see you have worked hard on the article but I am having some trouble following the action, as there are so many names of people, places etc without much context to help the reader keep tract. I am wondering also if it would help to have more informative headings, as the headings are meaningless unless the reader already knows the story. And perhaps a system of headings with subheading to help organize the major events from the sub events.


 * Some prose nitpicks (I have tried to copy edit some, but feel free to change)
 * The height of land between the Kennebec and the Chaudière River was a swampy tangle of lakes and streams... - do you mean elevation of the land or is "height in this case a military term of some kind?
 * Arnold, who had also had business dealings in the province before the war,[3] had intelligence - too many "had"s

Anyway, the article is very interesting - until I became somewhat lost. I do not think it will be a big job to makes this article easier to follow for the general reader.

I may be adding more comments.

Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your copyediting. One thing I'm already aware of is the need for improved maps in this article, something I'd like to address eventually.  This may help with some with establishing geographic context.  The number of players is unfortunately somewhat large -- there are at times essentially five different groups to keep track of.  I'll see if I can reinforce the players' roles, or organize there actions better.


 * Let me know if the new map and prose changes have helped.  Magic ♪piano 20:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)*


 * I should probably wikilink height of land...  Magic ♪piano 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is much clearer. Very well done. (However, I wish the map were clearer!) Just a few questions:
 * Comments
 * Under "Searching for Lake Mégantic", the two parts of the advanced party become confusing. When did they unite, or did they?
 * I'll have to check the sources, but I believe the survey party (the ones marking the way) met the advance party (the one going for civilization) somewhere above Megantic. (Yes, this is confusing...)
 * Although Enos is mentioned several times, the impact of the fact that Arnold left him out of the meeting is not clear. Also, it is not quite clear why his men were united in defying him (over the food issue?) nor why he was court marshaled.
 * Enos' force was carrying most of the supplies, so council without him was not really a great move. I'll clarify the actions of his men and the court martial (something like "departing your commanding officer without leave", i.e. effectively AWOL, since he didn't have Arnold's permission).
 * I'm definitely going to continue looking for a better "main" map to mark up, this one was the first usable one I found. I'm also planning to eventually do detail maps of the height of land, comparing part of Montresor's map to a topographic map of the area.  Magic ♪piano 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, you have set the stage very well, and clarified the role of this miliary mission. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Enos' court martial reason is already there. Neither of the sources I have to hand give any specific indication why Enos' officers wanted to retreat.  (I can go back to more sources, but that will require a trip to the library.)  I've also tried changing the descriptive language for each party so that they're more clearly recognizable.  Magic ♪piano 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * One more thing that I forgot to mention. In Battle of Valcour Island, you set the stage very well by incorporating a few comments about the overall military situation (the American Revolution, etc.), so as to orient the general reader who may not be familiar with the context of the happenings in this article. Could you do the same for this article? Just add, more or less, the information from Battle of Valcour Island. Sorry, I didn't mention it earlier. Otherwise, the article is fine.

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Background section here already covered most of that; the Congressional authorization was there, I just needed to add the justification. Is there something else you think is missing?  Magic ♪piano 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If this goes against your judgment, then don't do it. But what I found immensely helpful in the Battle of Valcour Island was the section labeled "Background":

The American Revolutionary War, which began in April 1775 with the Battles of Lexington and Concord, widened in September 1775 when the Continental Army embarked on an invasion of the British Province of Quebec. Quebec was viewed by the Second Continental Congress as a potential avenue for British forces to attack and divide the rebellious colonies, and was at the time lightly defended. The invasion reached a peak on December 31, 1775, when the Battle of Quebec ended in disaster for the Americans. In the spring of 1776, 10,000 British and German troops arrived in Quebec, and Quebec's governor, General Guy Carleton, drove the Continental Army out of Quebec and back to Fort Ticonderoga. etc.
 * Is there not similar orienting information for this article, for someone who does not know about the American Revolution? If you do not think it is appropriate, I will drop my request. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I had the first two sentences covered, but you're right that there was no actual link to the American Revolutionary War. I've added some.  Magic ♪piano 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Great! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Another nice article by you,  Magic . Congratulations!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS):  Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on the subject of the 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:
 * 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:

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)