Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of White Marsh/archive1

Battle of White Marsh

 * 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 February 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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because substantial expansion and revisions were made to article. Looking for feedback to develop and improve even further.

Thanks in advance!, Alphageekpa (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Natural Cut: In the lead, I suggest 'A series of skirmishes rather than a single battle,' in place of 'The battle, which took the form of a series of skirmish actions'. The rest reads well. I also thought it worth mentioning that throughout the article you link terms like Lt. Col. You're possibly in the right policy-wise, it felt a little excessive to me though.

A general suggestion is that Napoleon's article provides an excellent example of distinguishing notes from references and how to format sourcing for your notes.

In the background and movement section, a map of the larger area would be useful. Since for example Germantown is part of Philadelphia today, a historical map would be ideal. Also, getting as detailed as 'turned left on Forty-Foot Road' might be overkill unless it has special significance (there's no wikilink so I assume not).

Methacton redirects to Methacton High School; unfortunately, the location it gives on that page is also a red link. Eagleville is listed in the infobox there, so 'near modern-day Eagleville' in parentheses seems like the best solution.

Any special reason the council of war (paragraph 2) voted against an attack? Aside from the aforementioned state of their forces.

You say 'in retaliation' (paragraph 3) without stating what he's retaliating against. Were the Americans starting the fights we just described or was there an incident?

First day, paragraph 2: 'and sent the heavy baggage' - I'd elaborate if that's a military term, if it's literally just supplies and whatnot then it's fine. (Side note: In lieu of the barefoot soldiers, I personally thought of Princess Vespa's matched luggage in the Spaceballs desert scene. :-P)

We may as well merge the second and third days since the second is a single paragraph and the third starts at 1am I had inserted that Howe was deciding on the next day's strategy, then saw the second day didn't really end per se.

Third day, paragraph 2 provides a perfect example of a place to differentiate between notes (the bit about being the subject of a painting, etc.) and references, as well as a place (McGuire 249) where a note can indeed have a reference in it. It also feels like it ought to be split. I'd like to get your opinion on that.

Unless there's a discrepancy in reports for paragraph 3, we can just say the 4th Regiment and 23rd Regiment killed one American and had 9 killed, 19 wounded on their side. You may have had a separate sentence about reporting one American killed for a reason.

'[T]hey fought Indian style, from tree to tree.' - I sort of get the idea here, but further elaboration such as a cat-and-mouse comparison would help.

'The morning of December 8 was foggy and the temperature mild.' - This doesn't seem to have a major impact on the paragraph. Perhaps incorporate it as a side note into a place where it's relevant, e.g. the fire-lighting strategy if that was meant to take advantage of the fog. It does suggest there was no weather-related reason for the Brits to withdraw, but it's a weak paragraph and section starter.

Nothing really to note in the aftermath section other than that I merged the casualties with Washington's disappointment. The 'destructive modernization' bit at the very end raised an eyebrow of curiosity when I read it, but the reader can look it up themselves. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)