Talk:Battle of Trois-Rivières/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

Lead feels a bit skimpy. Suggest adding a sentence about the background to the battle, why were the American's in Quebec in the first place?
When did Sullivan take command?

Neither of these is enough to hold back GA status. I've taken the liberty of doing a light copyedit. The prose is still a bit clunky at places, if your goal is FAC, I strongly suggest a peer review. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive review! I know I've got a date on Sullivan's arrival somewhere, I'll put it in (that whole situation was an awful, disorganized, mess, and not all that well documented, but I know that date exists). As for why they were there, I thought the first sentence of the second lead paragraph answered that; I can probably make it more explicit, though. Magic♪piano 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]