Talk:Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1775–1776/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk ) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. It clearly explains to me why Benedict Arnold had so much trouble, which I never fully understood before. I have only a few, minor comments"


 * Committee of Safety (in the lead) and Fort George (Early Revolutionary War) need disambiguation


 * Lead
 * "He then resigned is Massachusetts commission over command disputes at Ticonderoga after the arrival of additional Connecticut militia troops." - not clear if the arrival of additional Connecticut troops cause the "command disputes", or if he wait until they arrived before he resigned.


 * I assume that "courts martial" is the correct plural, instead of court martials?


 * Quebec expedition
 * How did Arnold come to be using an inaccurate map given to him by a British military engineer?


 * Later military career
 * "His British military service consisted of an expedition to raid American supply depots in Virginia in 1781, whose major action was the Battle of Blandford, and then a raid against New London, Connecticut" - the "whose" refers to "expedition"?

This article is is very well written. However, I advise getting a peer review if you intend to take it to FAC. I see no flaws, but the FAC people have different standards. Xtzou ( Talk ) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments; I think this article (and the next one in the series) are needed to show in detail what might have motivated Arnold's defection, so it's good to know I succeeded in this one. I think I've made changes that address your concerns -- I will note that the means by which Arnold acquired Montresor's map and journal are not described, even in sources I checked that are dedicated to the expedition.  (It certainly wasn't by asking Montresor -- he was on the other side of the lines in Boston.)  Magic ♪piano 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct
 * B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic  MoS
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: Reliable sources
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: Sets the context
 * B. Focused: Remains focused on the subject
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Great job! Xtzou ( Talk ) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Magic ♪piano 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Great job! Xtzou ( Talk ) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Magic ♪piano 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Great job! Xtzou ( Talk ) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Magic ♪piano 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Magic ♪piano 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)