Talk:Patrick Cleburne/GA1

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

Very good article: well-written, -cited and -illustrated; just placing on hold while the items below are addressed...


 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Intro is really too short for GA, would normally expect a couple of paragraphs, each somewhat longer than the one that’s there now.
 * During the campaigns of 1863 in Tennessee, Cleburne and his soldiers fought at the Battle of Chickamauga, including a rare night assault and a fierce rear guard action that probably saved the Army of Tennessee from utter destruction by holding off a much larger Union force on the northern end of Missionary Ridge after the Battle of Missionary Ridge in Chattanooga, and at the Battle of Ringgold Gap in northern Georgia, in which Cleburne's men again protected the Army of the Tennessee as it retreated to Tunnel Hill, Georgia. This sentence really should be split, too big a mouthful...
 * Believe the "several geographic features" named after him should just be in a sentence, not a bulleted list.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Generally I find we only include items in a Reference section if they're specifically cited, otherwise they go under a Further Reading section. By that standard Buck, for instance, would be moved from References to Further Reading.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Think we should drop "solid" from solid, middle-class - seems a bit opinionated.
 * ...events that some say indeed came to pass sounds like editorialising, even if you're only reflecting a comment that's in your source; in any case, "some say" is a weasel phrase - who says it?


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * 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:

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately have to fail this as no response to above points after more than a month. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)