Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Harlem Heights/archive1

Battle of Harlem Heights

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on it quite a bit lately and I want to see if there is anything else I can do to improve it.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Working... Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711 comments

Lead:
 * Reduce overlinking of common terms and multiple links to the same article per WP:OVERLINK. For instance, in the lead, Continental Army is linked three times in one paragraph. Such words as "retreat" don't need to be linked as most English speakers will know what a retreat is.
 * Suggest changing "Americans" in the first paragraph to "Continental Army" rather than a piped link. Remove the word "what became". Wikilink "Alexander Leslie".
 * "The battle went a long way to restore the confidence of the Continental Army after being outflanked at the Battle of Long Island soon followed by a terrible performance at Kip's Bay." This sentence is too long and detailed for the lead. Perhaps something like "The battle went a long way to restoring the confidence of the Continental Army after recent defeats" or something similar. The shift to the NY/NJ campaign is jarring. I would eliminate the word "also" from the following sentence.
 * The last paragraph of the lead is too short and abrupt. It also does not appear to be supported by the body text. The lead says Washington was "compelled" to move the army but the body says that he moved the army after about a month of inactivity in response to a British troop movement. It does not make the connection between the Battle of Harlem Heights and the troop movement.
 * I would re-arrange the caption text under the infobox image to read "A plaque commemorating the American victory, on the math building of Columbia University." I don't find the location of the building to be necessary.

Background:
 * Avoid misleading pipelinks, for example linking "Battle of Kip's Bay" to "troops landed" and, later, "Battle of White Plains" to "defeated". Spell out and link the actual phrase.
 * Eliminate the phrase "after making preparations".
 * Eliminate the word "Thus" and make the time notation either both upper-case or both lower-case.

Battle:
 * Wikilink "picket" to Picket (military)
 * Eliminate the phrase "After spotting Knowlton's troops".
 * "Ensued" is the wrong word.
 * Comma needed after "retreating".
 * The Lengel quote needs a reference. remove the word "instead" immediately after the quote.
 * Add and reference the fact that the British blew a fox hunt call. It can't only be in the lead.
 * "entrap" → "trap".
 * Why does "Sunken lane" link to Hollow way and why is "Sunken" capitalized?
 * "After the British were in the hollow way, the 150 volunteers were reinforced by 900 more men and all the troops were stationed too far away from the British so that neither side could do too much damage to the other." Break this into two sentences after the word "men".
 * Wikilink Knowlton's Rangers
 * "Buckwheat" should not be capitalized.
 * Insert "he" between "back," and "sent".
 * "Buckwheat Field" should be lower-case.
 * "such as" → "including"
 * Comma between "Washington" and "fearing".
 * "have" → "gave"

Aftermath:
 * I wonder if the first two sentences of this section shouldn't actually be in the Battle section?
 * "moral" → "morale"
 * The lead mentions the New York and New Jersey campaign but the body text doesn't, nor does it explain how this battle was connected to that campaign.
 * The text does not make it clear why these particular events are the "aftermath" of this battle.
 * The section is very short but explaining and clarifying the above points should result in an appropriate expansion.

I would go through the article with an eye to reducing the number of commas. The large number of commas where they aren't needed makes the prose read choppily.

So, mostly minor fixes with a couple of more serious issues. Hope you found these comments useful. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)