Talk:Burning of Falmouth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBurning of Falmouth 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
DateProcessResult
April 24, 2009Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 18, 2011, October 18, 2016, and October 18, 2022.

minor quibbles re: GA[edit]

Interesting topic and article. I'm making some minor grammatical changes. Any problems with these, please notify on this page or my talk. Haploidavey (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC) But am holding any changes until discussed with the main editor, who'll be arriving anyday now... Haploidavey (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copyedit; I actually appreciate it. I don't pretend to own articles. Magic♪piano 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

queries[edit]

  • "By 1797 more than 400 homes, and factories, offices, and municipal buildings had been constructed": is the number (400) inclusive of homes, factories etc? Do these replace those lost through the attack? Haploidavey (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I recall the source correctly, 400 is the number of new homes constructed by then. Magic♪piano 15:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, if you're going to change the date format, please familiarize yourself with WP:DATE -- "Month day year" (without comma between day and year) is not MOS-compliant. (As far as I know, all dates were previously compliant.) Magic♪piano 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I'll change those. Haploidavey (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have read and reverted. Good luck with the GA promotion. Haploidavey (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Lead, P1, S2: It is the fleet, I presume? After the discussion of the towns Falmouth, it's not clear.
    • Background, P1, S1: Not sure what the sentence is saying… is there a missing word before supplied? Also, it would be helpful to reiterate exactly who was besieging them.
    • Sailing to Falmouth, P1, S2: Where is Cape Ann (any link?) and are there really harbors (plural) there?
    • Attack, P1 & P2: At the end of P1 Mowat says "the body of the town is in one flame", but at the beginning of P2 he thinks it inadequate. Is there any explanation why?
    • Attack, P2, S1: Maybe use set fire to instead of fire (as a verb) here for accessibility?
    • Aftermath, P2, S1: Why did his career suffer? Sure from a modern perspective it sounds barbaric, up to this point in the article there's no condemnation of it mentioned.
    • Damage assessment, P1, S1: Using "Up to" with a very specific number, 417, sounds a little strange. If there's uncertainty in the historical record, maybe it should say "At least 417" or "Over 400" depending on how the info is stated in sources
    • Political reaction, P2, S4: "His orders" here is unclear to me. Is it orders he issued, or orders issued to him?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    A lot of recent activity, but seems to be copy-edit related and in no way an edit war or any such thing
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I think this is a fine article, with just a minor prose issues that need to be resolved before it passes. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can to address/clarify some of the prose issues outlined above. Haploidavey (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered the rest, except for the issue of Mowat's career. I believe that Mowat's career was frustrated by (1) the barbarity of the act, and (2) the fact that the act had the opposite of its intended effect (even if he was just following orders). Are you saying it's not a reasonable conclusion from the article that this is the case? (I can probably dig into this further, but is it an issue to hold up the review for?)
I'll also note that Cape Ann (now linked) does in fact have several harbors (all four towns have harbors, I believe, and may have in colonial times), even under the strict definition. If you liberalize the definition, it can be stretched to include the harbors of Salem, Massachusetts and Marblehead, Massachusetts. Magic♪piano 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes all look good. As far as Cape Ann is concerned, I was thinking of a settlement rather than a geographic feature; I mostly wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo. And, I think moving the paragraph about Mowat's career farther down helps a great deal. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burning of Falmouth. 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) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_of_Falmouth&oldid=1200464701"