Talk:Battle of White Marsh

	Battle 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 17, 2009 Peer review Reviewed February 15, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed October 28, 2010 Good article nominee Listed 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

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution 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 Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) American Revolutionary War task force Philadelphia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]