Talk:Battle of White Marsh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBattle of White Marsh has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
February 15, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
October 28, 2010Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 8, 2023.
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of White Marsh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Inconsistency in British troop strength (infobox:14,000 vs. article text:10,000); one uncited paragraph.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    I'd like to see a little more background; three sentences or so on why and how Howe got to Philadelphia.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    I get a sense that American units involved are identified more completely than British units. I realize this is somewhat complicated when light infantry units from different regiments are brigaded together. But if we know e.g. what troops (by regiment) Robert Abercromby was leading, they should be identified. The identification is generally good enough that I wouldn't stop a GA on this count.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Images needing description updates: File:Emlen house.jpg (needs a date of creation/publication), File:Battle of whitemarsh map.jpg (should have {{Information}} template), File:PA-MONTCO-FTWASHINGTON-WISSAHICKON.JPG (info was mangled when copied to Commons)
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The end of the article could use an image (perhaps moving the Wissahickon Creek image down there, or providing another).
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Overall very good, but a few relatively modest issues to address. GA is on hold. Magic♪piano 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been more than two weeks since my review, and most of the issues I raised have not been addressed, I am closing this review. Article is not promoted to GA. Magic♪piano 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of White Marsh/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    You mention Light Infantry battalions and such. If these were were brigaded together from the light companies of different battalions, please say so in a note. Also, without a designation they should not be capitalized.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'll review this tomorrow.

Capitalization fixed. I hadn't noticed anything in the sources that said that about the infantry battalions. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curious omission since I'm not aware that the Brits had any light infantry regiments organized this early. But if it's not mentioned in your sources that's fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of White Marsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of White Marsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of White Marsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_White_Marsh&oldid=1205534470"