This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article seems to be full of a lot of weasel words.
References to how brave and stout troops were seem emotive rather than factual.
Also at the end of the article there is talk of the British being annoyed by the Americans jubilation doesn’t offer any explanation. Which British people were annoyed? Was everyone in Britain angry? The Military? The ones who had been taken prisoner? Who says that they were angry? Why were they any more angry then most people are when they lose a battle? How did they know about the Americans being jubilant? For that matter...which Americans were jubilant? All of them? The army that was present?
It reads like it has been copied straight from a text book and needs seriously revision/rewriting with proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.89.224.75 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very poorly written article. It badly needs to be "cleaned up."
It appears to be a cut-and-paste from a nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century account of the battle - note the reference to "Dr. Hornblower's grandmother." It would be lovely to find the citation for this; it's almost certainly taken from a history of Jersey City or New Jersey.
Removal of one sentence regarding Colonel Van Boskirk[edit]
I'm a passer-by, not an expert. I agree entirely with everything posted above, which I note is now 16 years old. I removed the following text appended to the summary, immediately before the Contents box: "The same night, Colonel Van Boskirk [further explanation needed]left Paulus Hook with a force of one hundred and thirty men to make a raid upon the neighborhood. Fortunately the two parties did not meet." There is no other mention of Colonel Van Boskirk, no hint as to where he took his force from or which army he belonged to - one can guess, of course, but it's scarcely encyclopedia material Least of all that dreadful "Fortunately". As an article the whole thing leaves much to be desired, but that specific sentence is intolerable. JohnHarris (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
