Talk:Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clark, I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, more to follow tonight or tomorrow:

"the Sons of Liberty in the Wilmington area, which was active in protesting the Stamp Act 1765" -- the "which" is slightly ambiguous here--was the Sons of Liberty or the Wilmington area active in protesting the Act? Perhaps which could be replaced with "a group" or "a region", respectively. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Changed to "the Wilmington Sons of Liberty organization". Better? Cdtew (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's a few more. Overall this seems excellent and ripe for promotion, though I've got a few checks left to do. Thanks for your work on expanding this! As last time, I've done some minor cleanup as I went, so please check to make sure I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

Look good to me!

"who refused want to give up" -- should the "want" be cut here? I'm not quite clear what this phrase means.

Done

"and intentionally fired above his left shoulder" -- is the "his" here "his own" or "Howe's"?

Done - supposed to be his own.

"the South Carolinian and American Gazette" -- if this is a newspaper, its title should probably be italicized.

Done

The ISBN for Lefler is displaying as invalid.

Done - missed a "0"

Not an issue for GA, but the editor parameter isn't showing for the Whitaker citation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected - Thanks for your comments so far! Cdtew (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See minor prose points above.~~ Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass