Talk:Raid on Haverhill (1708)/GA1

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I intend to undertake a Good Article Review of this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 :
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * Lead section - "because of defenses heightened by warnings of the raiders' activities." This seems a bit awkward and unclear.  Would there by any factual problem in rephrasing it as "because defending forces were forewarned of the raiders' activities"? Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Background - "many of the survivors were adopted" - It's unclear if this is referring to surviving raiders, surviving prisoners, or both. Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Background - "a somewhat unexpected target" - I realise that "somewhat unexpected" is explained by the article generally, but at the point in the article where it appears, it doesn't receive explanation for quite some time, and is annoyingly mysterious. (See WP:ASTONISH for the Principle of Least Astonishment.)  Could you replace with "the unintended target" or just "the target", given that the detail is provided later? Reworded  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Background - "Indians that were under French influence" - From context it's reasonably easy to guess that this means Native Americans, but in the context of a port and trade it's open to read it as Indians from India. Could you clarify, please?  (Likewise "via Indian traders" later in the section.)
 * Respectfully disagree. This is hardly the first use of the word "Indian", and the earlier paragraphs have already established North America as the theater.  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is at least an arguable viewpoint and therefore probably comes under editorial discretion and not clarity of writing. It should therefore not hold up the GA process.  I still think it would be clearer with a disambiguation (eg "American Indians") but I will pass over this point for the purpose of GA.
 * Raid - "One of the colonial garrisons was in stationed in the home of the minister" - Should this read "garrisons was stationed in" rather than "was in stationed in"? Fixed  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Raid - "They fired through the door" - The "they" here is presumably meant to be the raiders, but from the previous sentence reads as though it refers to the colonial garrisons. Fixed  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Raid - "made off with their packs" - Does this mean that the man stole the packs and then deserted, or that he took the packs from the camp and returned with them to the milita forces? Or if it's not clear from the sources, can you explain that through a direct quotation in the accompanying citation? Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Raid - "They were forced to leave loot behind" - Again, the "they" here is presumably the raiders but could as easily refer to the militia. Please clarify. Clarified  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * Lead section - The lead section does not adequately describe what the Raid on Haverhill is. Consider reworking the first sentence as something along the lines of, "The Raid on Haverhill was a military engagement which took place..." Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Words to watch - "take up the hatchet" - Poetic language/colloqualism. It's a lovely turn of phrase but unfortunately unencyclopaedic.  Maybe try "unwillingness of some Indian tribes to fight"? Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Words to watch - "a timely militia muster" - The word "timely" at face value is editorialising, because you're not just describing an action (eg "swift") but also ascribing a value to it (eg "pleasingly swift" or "appropriately swift"). The word doesn't appear anywhere else in the article matched to a citation.  Is there any problem with using "swift", "quick", "speedy", or another similar word instead? Reworded  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Words to watch - "most notorious raid of the war" - The assertion "most notorious" is not sourced in this article, and, being a subjective judgement, it's a bit dubious in any event. Raid on Deerfield appears to support the "notorious" claim through sources, but you do not link to that article in the "most notorious" sentence.  Ideally, you should bring some of the Deerfield sources through to this article to back the "most notorious" claim, AND introduce a wikilink to the Deerfield raid somewhere proximate.  Otherwise, the claim should probably be removed or edited. Reworded  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Words to watch - "A small number of provincial militia" - Vague. "Small" in military terms can mean anything from "less than 10" to "less than 3000".  Are you able to be more specific, even to the level of "less than 100"?  If the sources do not permit more clarity, it might be helpful to include the exact quote from the source in the citation footnote.  Are these the same garrisons mentioned later? Clarified  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Words to watch - "with all haste for the village, with the French and Indians whooping and hollering" - I'm assuming this language comes from the source, but neither "with all haste" nor "whooping and hollering" are encyclopaedic language. Either put them in direct quotes, or change them to more neutral language (eg "headed for the village quickly, with the French and Indians in noisy pursuit") Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Words to watch - "cowering colonial militiamen" - Again, "cowering" is not NPOV or encyclopaedic language. Place in quote marks, or convert to encyclopaedic language (probably by just removing the word "cowering" altogether). Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Words to watch - "one baby was casually thrown through an open window" - I'm not sure what the word "casually" here implies but it again does not appear to be NPOV language. Can you clarify? Removed "casually".  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Not required for GA) - Words to watch - The term "Indian" for Native Americans isn't so un-PC as to require a global find-and-replace, and obviously it will appear in many of the sources, but you may wish to consider whether you can do better than this, either by (wherever possible) referring to the individual tribes and nations by name, or alternatively using phrasings such as "indigenous tribes" or "native Americans", so far as that's possible without mangling the article or inserting inappropriate neologisms and anachronisms.
 * This subject has come up before in a variety of reviews (and I fully expect it do so again). The consensus on terminology for unidentified or mixed groups of Native Americans appears to be that there is no consensus on "politically correct" terminology.  I usually fall back to "Indian" because it's short and it's generally clear from context who is meant.  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd keep it in mind as an area that could be open to improvement, but your rationale for the current wording seems well thought out and reasonable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article complies with the manual of style for layout. The manuals of style for fiction and lists do not apply to this article.

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * All sources appear in a defined and described section.
 * (b) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * Assuming good faith for offline sources, all content appears to be cited to reliable sources through inline citations.
 * (c) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * There is no evidence of original research in this article.

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * The article covers all subjects that I would expect from an article of this sort.
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * The article does not contain inappropriate detail.

.
 * Subject to my concerns with language under criterion 1(b) "Words to watch" above, the article otherwise takes a neutral tone and appears to represent all relevant viewpoints.

.
 * The article does not appear to change rapidly or be the subject of any current dispute.

: 
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * File:HaverhillRaid1708.png - This image has the same problem as one from a couple of your (Magicpiano's) GAs back - the basic image is plainly in the public domain and appropriately tagged, but the digital annotations to the map (presumably made by you) are not adequately described. Could you add something to indicate the origin of the annotations as you did with that other image? Fixed  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (Not required for GA) - File:HaverhillRaid1708.png - This image could stand to be improved, in that the annotations to the map are not well explained. The caption describes it as "routes taken (or planned)" but doesn't say which are which, or indeed cover such cartography basics as indicating that the red circle represents the target of the raid.  That could be done in the article itself, in the caption, or on the image's description page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Not required for GA) - File:Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouville.jpg - The caption for the image of Hertel de Rouville could stand to be longer, to explain his significance to the article. (ie Hertel de Rouville, leader of the raid.)  Probably not required for GA though, as the current caption is certainly "suitable".
 * I've added some text to these captions. I don't think separately identifying routes planned but not taken from those actually taken is useful in the caption -- interested parties will read the explanation in the article text.  Magic ♪piano 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)



Overview - Another high quality article that needs minor copy-edits prior to promotion to Good Article. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you believe you have resolved the issues above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Overview 2 - The changes to the article are excellent and the article now accordingly passes the GA criteria. I will promote it.  Congratulations again! - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that takes care of these issues. Thanks again for your reviewing.  Magic ♪piano 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)