This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ambush of Geary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ambush of Geary 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Ambush of Geary is part of the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Francis Geary (British Army officer) page were merged into Ambush of Geary on 2008-02-18. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I've suggested Francis Geary (British Army officer) be merged in here - the man doesn't seem to have any real historical significance outside of this event, and it would seem better to give a quick one-paragraph biography of him in context here rather than sat out on its own. Shimgray | talk | 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this action honestly notable? This sort of thing happens in every war all the time and I see nothing here exceptional enough to deserve an article as opposed to an ambush somewhere else.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mm40 ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm Mm40 ( talk · contribs) and I'll be reviewing this nomination against the good article criteria. I'll be watching this page, and I'll be very active over the next few days, so you should just leave any comments or questions here. Thanks, Mm40 ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My first impression is that the article is very short, as most of it is background. However, after looking for more sources (using JSTOR and EBSCOhost and such) and looking at the talk page, I realize the article is actually longer than one would think it could be. Thus, length isn't a problem.
That's all I can find for this otherwise very nice article. I'll happily pass this after these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ambush of Geary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ambush of Geary 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Ambush of Geary is part of the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Francis Geary (British Army officer) page were merged into Ambush of Geary on 2008-02-18. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I've suggested Francis Geary (British Army officer) be merged in here - the man doesn't seem to have any real historical significance outside of this event, and it would seem better to give a quick one-paragraph biography of him in context here rather than sat out on its own. Shimgray | talk | 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this action honestly notable? This sort of thing happens in every war all the time and I see nothing here exceptional enough to deserve an article as opposed to an ambush somewhere else.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mm40 ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm Mm40 ( talk · contribs) and I'll be reviewing this nomination against the good article criteria. I'll be watching this page, and I'll be very active over the next few days, so you should just leave any comments or questions here. Thanks, Mm40 ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My first impression is that the article is very short, as most of it is background. However, after looking for more sources (using JSTOR and EBSCOhost and such) and looking at the talk page, I realize the article is actually longer than one would think it could be. Thus, length isn't a problem.
That's all I can find for this otherwise very nice article. I'll happily pass this after these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)