Talk:Boston campaign/GA1

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

I am going to have to fail this article. For one, the lead is extremely short, and before it is promoted to GA, it will have to be expanded. Next, there are multiple sentences, some at the end of paragraphs that need citations. I will put citation needed tags in where needed. There is an extremely short sentence that needs to be merged into a section. Also, there is a sentence that says something like this: ‘the shot heard round the world – the revolutionary war had begun’ which does not sound encyclopedic. Rather it sounds like it was copied from a magazine or such. Fix these issues, renominate, and I will be happy to pass. By the way, your citations are nice. Formatted citations are always nice to see. Cheers,  Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line''' 17:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Piano, I'll actually do an in-depth review for you...give me 15 minutes or so. BTW, keep the "shot heard round the world" sentence, as that is what is was called! (there is a link to it, redmark...) — Ed   17   (talk)  — 18:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, after a quick run-through:
 * The lead does need to be expanded to at least 2 paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
 * Done.
 * This sounds odd: "...on Evacuation Day, March 17, 1776, after the colonial army under George Washington fortified Dorchester Heights."
 * Fixed. I assume this takes care of the commas, too.
 * Too many commas, IMO.
 * "In 1767, the British Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, which imposed import duties on a variety of common items imported into the American colonies. The Sons of Liberty responded by organizing boycotts of those goods, and harassing and threatening the customs personnel (many of whom were either corrupt or related to Provincial leaders) tasked with collecting the duties."
 * I don't really like how this sounds...maybe something more like "In 1767, the British Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, which imposed import duties on a variety of common items imported into the American colonies. The Sons of Liberty responded by organizing boycotts of these while harassing and threatening the customs personnel (many of whom were either corrupt or related to Provincial leaders) tasked with collecting the duties." Improve this (*my version*) more, as this is not a great sentence. :)
 * Rewritten.
 * Also, just what is a "common item"?
 * Comment Well, Townshend Acts explains, do I really need to?
 * Just put in a couple of examples... i.e. "...on a variety of common items that were imported into the American colonies, such as _____, ____ and ______." — Ed   17   (talk)  — 22:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * "...but the countryside was in the hands of the Revolutionaries."
 * Needs a citation + get rid of the link?
 * "With the Battle of Lexington and Concord—the "shot heard 'round the world"—the war had begun."
 * Citation please.
 * Comment. Seriously: is this statement controversial? why?
 * Hmmm good point. :) If you are planning on taking this to FAC, then you probably should add a citation if you run across one, though. — Ed   17   (talk)  — 22:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consider this my protest against the notion that every sentence or paragraph requires citation. We don't doubt that water is wet, but I'm sure there are WP reviewers who would want a cite for it.  (If I do take this article to FAC, I'll fight the battle there too;  I've got more ammunition to use. :) )
 * "In the aftermath of the failed Concord expedition, the thousands of militiamen who had converged on Boston remained, bottling up the British in the city."
 * A lot of problems with this...it's lonely (make it into a paragraph or move it into another sentence), the wikilinked is egged, and it needs a citation.
 * Expanded and cited.
 * "One of these actions was contested by the British during the Battle of Chelsea Creek, but it resulted in the loss of a British ship.[9]"
 * British victory/loss/Pyrrhic victory? It doesn't say.
 * Comment. This was basically a skirmish.
 * So no one won? — Ed  17   (talk)  — 22:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, what do you think the British lost a ship translates into? (I also think the use of but implies enough about the success of the British action. The action qualifies as a tactical British loss; it did not alter the status quo of the siege.  I think all of this is clear from the surrounding context.)
 * ("Legacy") "As a result, they were never able to marshal enough support from Loyalists to regain meaningful political control of the colonies."
 * Citation please. Cited.
 * Personal thing for me: rename the "Notes" section to "References" and "References" to "Bibliography"...see User:The ed17/Rename Notes for more info.
 * Comment I take my cue from WP:LAYOUT (which is admittedly ambiguous on preferred names for these sections) and a large number of other articles with these section names. I'm personally somewhat indifferent as to the section names, but I think consistency is a Good Thing, which is why I use the ones I do.  If you really think it should be a different, perhaps you should lobby for WP:LAYOUT to be changed or at least clarified?
 * Like I said, it's a personal preference&mdash;if you don't want to change it, then feel free not too. :) — Ed   17   (talk)  — 22:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of nit-picking here, but if you fix this, re-nominate it for GA and leave me a note&mdash;I'll pass it. :) Cheers! — Ed   17   (talk)  — 18:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, are there any external links that you can add? — Ed   17   (talk)  — 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ed. I was a bit surprised at the failure -- it's not like this kind of stuff can't be fixed in a week or so.  I'll look at your comments in detail later; real life intrudes.  Magic ♪piano 18:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was surprised too...that why I did this. :) Good luck with RL, and cheers! — Ed   17   (talk)  — 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as external links, I haven't gone and looked for any specifically. I always try to use at least some readily-accessible Google Books as references that anyone (reviewer or interested reader) can followup on.  If you really want detail on this campaign, Frothingham, while 150+ years old, really did a great job on collecting and using primary sources available at the time.  Modern scholars (e.g. McCullough) still reference him.
 * I think I've covered your points (barring the open discussions above). Let me know what you think.  Magic ♪piano 15:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)