Talk:Fortification of Dorchester Heights/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed feedback. I'll look into it this week.  Magic ♪piano 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed the issues you present, except for the question on more recent references, which I will address later this week. Let me know if there are any issues with the changes and additions.  Magic ♪piano 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "The time had arrived to act." - a big cliche: who made the decision to act?
 * "which was a disaster to the British" - should be "a disaster for the British.
 * "Washington also made plans for attacking Boston from Cambridge, should the British decide on that course of action." - This sentence is difficult to understand. Do you mean that if the British attacked, Washington was prepared to cunter attack with troops from Cambridge against the British defences which were undermanned because of the attack on Dorchester Heights? If so, then explain it a little more fully. Sentence moved to more appropriate place and rewritten.
 * " However, a snow storm rolled in late on the 5th and halted any chance of a battle for several days" - use "began" or "descended" instead of "rolled in" and say "5 March" instead of "the 5th".


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References are good, but the article depends very heavily on a 105 year old history: what does more modern scholarship say about this event and what did contemporary writers say about it?
 * Comment. Actually, Frothingham's work was originally published in 1851, so it's 158 years old.  I use Frothingham a lot because (1) he gets a lot of basic facts right, and (2) citations using him are easy to check.  I generally cross-check most my facts against more modern sources. For most of the Boston campaign articles, he has been indispensable, but not always well-rounded.  For this event, there is not a great deal of controversy about it and its after-effects.  (I can, if you want, broaden the citations that cover the main event to a few more sources; that may take a little more time.)
 * I have no problem with an old source just because its old: I use older sources all the time, its just that scholarship tends to evolve and modern historians might have a different take on things. If, as you say, they generally don't in this case then that is fair enough, although it couldn't hurt to spread the citations around a bit more.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm heading to the library this week anyway, so I'll pick an extra book or two.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "which he did in a logistically difficult operation taking from November 1775 to February 1776" - since this operation in germaine to the article it should be described: what made it logistically difficult?
 * "several other strategic points" - which points? (Also, since the word point has already appeared in the sentence, use "positions" instead).
 * The photograph shows a whopping great church thing the commemorates the battle: this suggests that the commemoration section is incomplete. A GA cannot have a single sentence section, so please develop at least one full paragraph of information about the commemoration and consider renaming the section to aftermath in order to include missing information. Questions that arise are: Is Dorchester Heights still fortified? If not, what is there now? What were the ramifications of the British withdrawal from Boston? What was the contemporary commentary about the feat of fortifiying the position over one night and the capture of Boston that resulted?
 * Comment In 1776, news traveled slowly. The news was that the British left Boston, not that the heights were fortified (i.e. it was, from a news standpoint, incidental).  I'm not sure what other kind of commentary you're expecting, beyond the reaction of the British commanders.  (I'm trying to not make this an article about the evacuation, which gets a bit more coverage in Siege of Boston.)
 * Regarding that specific point, I'm not looking for more on the evacuation, that (as you say) is covered in more detail elsewhere. What I am asking is that the feat of fortifying a hill within sight of the enemy in a single night without being noticed is a very impressive one: was Washington lauded for it in the contemporary press or by contemporary writers. If not, then don't include that point. The questions above were only meant as a guide for ideas that might help expand the section. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the section (and renamed it Legacy). (I think that Howe's quote really sums up any reaction to the specific act pretty well.  It's not unlike the British reaction to the American fortification of Breed's Hill -- "they did what?")


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * The image of the memorial on the heights should not be on the right diretly under a second level heading. I've rearranged the quote and the memorial image.
 * "battle of Bunker Hill" should have a capital b on battle when used as the name for the battle.
 * "Washington's judgment was keen; these were exactly the options Howe considered." - keen is a bit of a peacock term, perhaps accurate is more appropriate.
 * Put quote marks around the quote in the quote box.


 * Great work, happy to pass the article (as an ancilliary note, it might be a good idea to expand the first paragraph of the lead, and I would recommend expanding the background section of the action before attempting FAC).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks!  Magic ♪piano 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)