Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Princeton/archive1

Battle of Princeton[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got it to GA status and I am thinking after some improvements that I may be able to get it to A Class.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Michael Devore: The ISBN listed for Fischer's book Washington's Crossing comes back to John Ferling's Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence instead. The page references do seem to match Fischer's book content, and Ferling's book cites Fischer's book several times in its "Notes" section. Is this an ISBN error? -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info from Fischer off google books, so I am guess that is where the mistake came in. It is probably different on google books than it is in the actual book. I'm positive I put the correct pages down from google books, though. Very frustrating.-Kieran4 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the Fischer book's ISBN Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment. The second sentence is "The site is administered as a state park operated and maintained by the New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry." I work mostly on NRHP-listed and other historic site articles, and have in general decided that it is best to create a separate article about a battlefield or other site where event happened, separate from the article about the battle or other event. In the article about the event, a link to the separate article about the site should be given, usually towards the end. But I think this sentence is both too immediately prominent in this article about the event, and not very helpful yet, because it doesn't link to a specific article about the park / site which is surely notable enough for a stub to be created as are almost all state parks. What is the name of the park? Is it NRHP-listed by any chance? Set it up as a red-link in the article, at least. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From List of New Jersey state parks, I see that the historic site is Princeton Battlefield State Park. Actually, there does not seem to be a standard treatment for these situations where there is a preserved historic site and an event that happened there, both notable. As one example, Sand Creek massacre links to its corresponding historic site in a section titled "Sand Creek today". For another, Battle of Gettysburg links to its battlefield within a section titled "Casualties", which seems odd. In both, though, the mention of the current site is buried late in the article about the event, appropriately in my view. I wonder if there is an appropriate place to bring up this very narrow MOS-type issue, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is a good place, i may post something there. Anyhow, in your development of this article about the Battle of Princeton, it would be great if you could also add a bit more information to the Princeton Battlefield State Park article. That article states the park is a 100-acre park but is not clear on whether those 100 acres contain the entire battle area, for example. Perhaps you will be knowledgeable about that and other matters which are appropriate for the main article about the current site, but are more detailed than you want to mention in this article about the battle. I do hope you get a good peer review here, this one expanded comment of mine shouldn't count as having provided a peer review for you. Good luck with the article. doncram (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments - generally well done article, but needs some work to get to A class. Here are some suggestions for improvement of the article.

Avoid overlinking - George Washington is linked twice in just the lead. Generally it is OK to link once in the lead, once in the main text, and once in the infobox. Always link the first occurrence, so link Continental Army in the lead too. See WP:OVERLINK
Provide context to the reader. I read just the lead and was quickly lost as officers are identified by name and rank only and not by their army / side. One example General Hugh Mercer clashed with two Regiments under the command of Charles Mawhood. I did not know which side either of these men were on - since the preceding sentence says Washington led the Continetal troops to attack the British, I thought Mercer might be the British commander. See WP:PCR
Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a concise overview of the whole article. Nothing should be in the lead only, but the state park is. I would also link the state park to the article on the battlefied park, not the more generic state park. My rule of thumb is to include each header in the lead some way (a sentence or just a phrase).
Article could use a copyedit for general clean up - for example is it "Stony Brook" or "Stoney Brook"? Be consistent.
Make sure everyhting in the infobox is in the article itself too - I could not find the American casualties, for example.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]