Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:43, 5 December 2010 [1].
Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island[edit]
Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
This is the second order of battle I've nominated for Feature List consideration. The first was the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton (review), passed in July; it is the only featured order of battle for a land battle. The format I used is pretty much the same, although there are minor differences due to what sort of figures are available to report. I hope it meets with your approval; it has been through a MILHIST A-Class review. Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment
- I presume that the battalions of light infantry and grenadiers were assembled from those companies of the individual regiments? Otherwise looks nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment. The British forces, under the overall command of Lieutenant General William Howe, successfully flanked Continental Army positions on western Long Island ... This sentence repeats the following sentence from the second paragraph: The British forces, ... made a successful flanking maneuver around the American left while occupying the American right with diversionary battle. Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is generally not written in chronological order and its first and second paragraphs partially duplicate/contradict each other. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory, but I've rewritten the lead. Magic♪piano 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much better now. I have another problem, however. In the last table I read Glover's regiment, stationed on Manhattan during the battle, was sent over to Brooklyn on September 28, and was instrumental in evacuating the army on the night of September 29–30.. What is this sentence about? As I understand Brooklyn was abandoned on 29 August when the army was evacuated from Long Island? Was there the second evacuation at the end of September? Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory, but I've rewritten the lead. Magic♪piano 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - "Maj." and "Brig." do not fall under WP:ABBR#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia so should be written in full. Some of the rows are empty this is acceptable for the notes row but not the others. I am a bit confused over your use of the column spans example "British units" wouldn't this be best used as a section header? you've explained in the prose (though official titles should be added) who the Commander-in-cheif and Second in command were do you need a column span for this? I think it would also be more beneficial for the reader to convert the casualties row into a more suitable format such as seen here. I would suggest the removal of any small html tags in the tables to comply with MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I have no outstanding concerns. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have Afro, Sturmvogel and Ruslik0 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- I dont think there is much more detail out there unless one starts researching through primary sources.XavierGreen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments – Just a few tiny formatting issues. Even a pedant like me is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.