Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Quebec (1775)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted -MBK004 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Quebec (1775)

 * Nominator(s):  Magic ♪piano

This is next in my series of improvements to the Canadian campaign of the American Revolutionary War. I hope it meets with your approval.  Magic ♪piano 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with respect to FA criteria 1a, 1d, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4. A good article. Doug (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * no disambig links, ext links all work, images all have alt text (no action required);
 * images seem to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * In the lead, should "reestablished" have a hyphen, i.e. "re-established"?
 * There is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers. For example, in the Arnold's attack subsection "twenty bodies", but also "30 Americans killed". The MOSNUM generally prefers numbers greater than nine to be depicted with numerals;
 * In the References section Shelton should come before Smith alphabetically (Sh before Sm);
 * The page ranges and date ranges in the References should have endashes per WP:DASH;
 * Please check the format of your citations, # 56 has "pp." but # 57 has "p." — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These are all fixed; thanks for your feedback.  Magic ♪piano 15:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed, I feel this meets the A class criteria. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Comments : Support
 * I have made a few minor edits, please check that you're happy with them;
 * In the 1st para of the 'Siege' section you mention General Wooster at first instance and then later Major General David Wooster, IMO you should write his name and rank in full the first time, and then just use his last name for subsequent mentions. It should also be wikilinked at the first mention (not the second); and
 * Should "counteroffensive" (in last para of 'Siege' section and in the 'Aftermath') be hyphenated?
 * Overall, IMO this is a very good article however.

Anyway that is it from me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits look fine to me; thank you for taking the time. I've adjusted the links and reference to Wooster and his rank.  I'll also note that Wiktionary thinks "counteroffensive" is a word, while "counter-offensive" is not; Merriam-Webster.com accepts both as input, but spells it without a hyphen.  Magic ♪piano 01:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Looks good, adding my support. Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.