Talk:Capture of Savannah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this one (barring any issue in the sources, I can't see any reason why it won't pass). Please give me about 24 hours to compose the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to delay doing this another 24 hours or so. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, we're all just volunteers here. :) Magic♪piano 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

To be blunt, there's a reason that for my first MilHist GAN review I chose this, an article from the middle of the list. To make a long explanation short, I recognized your name, and I associate it with quality writing. The initial reading has lead me to believe that I was not mistaken in that association.

Sorry this took so long. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Acceptable

- I performed a copyedit myself. You might want to look it over, I don't think I changed anything substantive though. I also fixed a Dablink for Robert Howe (to Robert Howe (soldier)).

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

Acceptable

- It would have been nice to see the books myself, but just looking over the prose here itself I doubt that any copying or associated shenanigans occurred.

b. proper citation use:

Acceptable

c. no original research:

Acceptable

- See 6b.

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Acceptable

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Acceptable

5. Stable: Acceptable

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Notice

- While I can certainly see (based on the use of the word "rebel") how you would reach that conclusion, "probably drawn by a British engineer after the battle" appears to be original research. As such, I've removed it from the text. If you can cite the assertion, then you can put it back in.

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:

- The two maps could use alt texts. They don't need them, and with everything else fine I won't hold this up for them, but when you get the time....

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Comments after the initial review:

PASSED - Nothing that a CE couldn't fix. I left some comments at 6b and 7a, which might bear action on your part at a further date, but I found nothing that would hold up this GAN. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. The comment on the image came from a source that displayed the map (that I am now unable to locate). It's not a significant point. I undid part of your edits to the lead -- it may have been an oversight on your part, but it left something ungrammatical. Magic♪piano 21:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the threat of Patriot forces

Is that NPOV language? Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Binabik80 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]