Talk:Battle of Bloody Creek (1711)

Battle of Bloody Creek (1711) 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 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: British / Canadian / European / French / North America / United States / Early Modern

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
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	French 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)

Canada: Nova Scotia / History Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

Okay, "Native American victory". AFAIK Nova Scotia is in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.192.235 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Bloody Creek (1711)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to undertake a Good Article review of this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The article is generally well written, with correct spelling and grammar, but the following points need clarification or improvement:

Generally - (not required for GA) - You frequently use semicolons when a period would be more effective. The change is not required for GA but you might want to reconsider whether some sentences could be improved and made more readable by breaking them into discrete clauses rather than running them on with semicolons.
(Resolved) - Lead - "The battle was part of an orchestrated attempt by the leaders of New France to weaken the British hold on Annapolis Royal, which they had only captured the previous year and over which they only had a very tenuous hold." - The "they"s in this sentence are ambiguous. They presumably refer to the British but could equally refer to the leaders of New France. Could you try rephrasing.
(Resolved) - Lead - "The battle, in which an entire party was captured or killed" - It is unclear in what sense "party" is being used here. Does it refer to the entirety of the forces of one combatant, to a leader and their entourage, to a discrete military unit, or some other group?
(Resolved) - Background - "almost since the French first began settling the area in 1604" - If you know exactly when, it would be better to say that rather than use the vague "almost". (It might read, "since 1607, shortly after the French began settling the area in 1604", for example, or whatever the correct year is.)
(Resolved) - Background - "the next century" - This is unclear as it could be read to mean either "over the next hundred years" or "a hundred years later". Could you rephrase?
(Resolved) - Background - "in the Siege of Port Royal (1710)" - I realise that's the name of the article, but it might read better as "in the 1710 Siege of Port Royal" or "in the Siege of Port Royal of 1710"?
(Resolved) - Background - "This expedition left a garrison of about 450 men, a combination of British marines and New England provincial militia" - This sentence could be read as either "450 men, made up of a combination of" or "450 men plus a combination of". Could you rephrase to clarify?
(Resolved) - Background - "ordered Antoine Gaulin and, the priest to the loosely allied Indian tribes" - It looks like a word is missing here after "and", possibly the name of the priest? Also you might want to add the denomination of the priest to make it clear he's a missionary rather than a native holy man.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Subject to my concerns under 1a above, the article complies with the manual of style for lead sections.

This article complies with the manual of style for Layout, although I have the following comment:

(Not required for GA) - The external links may not comply with our external links policy. In particular, History of Nova Scotia, assuming it is a reliable source, would not comply because there is no pressing reason the relevant content cannot be incorporated into the article in a regular fashion.

The article has the following problems with words to watch:

"Not long before" - When?

I actually meant "when did they set out, specifically", but I suspect the answer to that from context is that the sources are not clear on this. I'll accordingly pass this.

The manuals of style for fiction and list incorporation do not apply to this article.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All sources are in a dedicated and labelled section.

(b) 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);

All content appears to be attributed to reliable sources through inline citations.

(c) it contains no original research.

There is no evidence of original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The article addresses all areas I would expect from an article of this sort.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article does not venture into inappropriate detail.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
The article covers all viewpoints that I am aware of in an appropriate and unbiased manner.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
The article does not change rapidly and is not subject to any ongoing dispute that I am aware of.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images appear to be appropriately tagged and licensed.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All images are used appropriately and have suitable captions.

Overview - Once again a well written article. Subject to clearing up the ambiguous phrasings identified under criterion 1 above, I expect to be able to promote this to Good Article. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you believe these concerns have been addressed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overview 2 - My concerns have been addressed and I now see no problem with promoting to Good Article. Congratulations! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. I think I've addressed your issues, let me know if not. Magic♪piano 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Bloody Creek (1711). 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) 13:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong location(?)[edit]

The plaque at the site on the south bank of the Annapolis River indicates the 1711 battle took place "on the north bank of the Annapolis River." This location is not indicated in the article, and the coordinates given are those for the later battle and the location of the current plaque/cairn. If the location of the 1711 battle can be identified (and it must be known, since it's part of the original designation), that could be added to this page, replacing the other information. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]