# Talk:Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I am reviewint this article for GA.  Although it is potentially a fascinating article, I find reading through it  quite confusing, what with three general Clintons and two forts. Although the lead is very clear as to what happened, when I try to follow the text in the body of the article, it becomes confusing.

I wish the article were more accessible to the lay person who may not know that much about American and British history.
Are you referring here to the strategic importance of this part of the Hudson (i.e. why it is important) or are you looking for more general background, like the strategic thinking behind Burgoyne's campaign?
Did I miss it, or is Fort Clinton named after one of the Clintons in the article, or another Clinton? (The Fort Clinton articles says it was commanded by James Clinton but I didn't read the article to find out if that was just a coincidence or what.)
After checking a few sources, the most likely candidate for naming honors was George, the governor.  I'll add something on that (and of course who Fort Montgomery was named for).
For example, on section starts out: "On the foggy morning of October 6, Clinton landed " - it is not immediately clear which Clinton this is.
I see you fixed this.
I have made some copy editing changes in the article to try to provide context and wikilinks for some of the content but feel free to make changes.
Your changes look fine so far.
In the lead it seems straight forward why the two forts are combined into one article, but trying to figure out the body of the text it becomes less clear. Perhaps you should not have separate sections in the article for the two forts.
I'm confused -- the battle section covers the division of the British troops and the separate attacks.  The main thing missing is a description of Clinton's planning (i.e. the strategy he planned to execute).
I changed some passive voices in the lead, but there is still a passive voice sentence there. It is best if you can remove all passive voice, especially in the lead.
Agreed; passive voice should be avoided.
Otherwise, this is an interesting article and you seem to have a good grasp of the subject matter.
Thanks!  I been edicatin' meself. :)
(Your pictures help, but many may be like me and look at the pictures last to sort things out.)
Would an extract of a map similar to this one (which I clipped for the Canadian campaign) help?  I can clip from the same source map a similar narrow strip from Albany (or Saratoga) down to NYC.
—Mattisse (Talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I will place the article on hold for seven days. Hopefully I will hear from you and we can get a dialog going. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops.  I interspersed my comments above, but forgot to sign. Magic♪piano 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for responding. The article looks much improved, and I will read it through again but I forsee no problems. Maps always help in orienting the reader, I think. This article is discussing events on very narrow terrain, for someone not familiar with the area in question in North America. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if the changes I've made address your concerns. Magic♪piano 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The addition of the map appears to cause layout problems. In Firefox, the pullquote overlaps the text, and appears in the section "Battle" instead of "British movements" in wide screen, although in a smaller screen it looks fine. In IE7 there is a huge white spaces under "Background" and "American defenses" in both wide and narror screens. I don't know what to suggest. The map is helpful but appears to cause disruption.   —Mattisse (Talk) 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.  (Makes some changes.)  That should be better now.  (Checked with FF and IE.) Magic♪piano 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I still get space problems, this time under "Background" in wide and narrow IE and in wide screen FF. By the way, the rest of the article is fine. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I hate image layout problems.  I think I've gotten the right combination of layout and avoidance of whitespace now... Magic♪piano 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I just hate to tell you this, but it is not all right in IE7, either wide or narrow. I personally don't care about IE, but I understand that most people use it. Maybe if you go to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), they will help you out. I have found they are extremely  good at solving such problems. (Also, it is no longer OK in wide screen FF.) —Mattisse (Talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine to me in wide-screen FF (the images start to sandwich a bit then, but it's hardly a big deal given their separation).  I've asked for help at the pump. Magic♪piano 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Removing the <div style="float:right;align:right"> seems to help in FF and narrow screen IE, on my computer.  I can't even get my user page to look right in IE!  —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had tried that, and something about it didn't work in preview.  But if looks good to you, I'll be happy too.  (I can go answer your questions about Invasion of Canada (1775)...) Magic♪piano 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written in an interesting style  b (MoS): Follows the relevant MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers the major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Passes GA - Congratulations! 
—Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110004020/http://www.nysba.state.ny.us:80/bridgepages/BMB/BMBpage/bmb_page.htm to http://www.nysba.state.ny.us/bridgepages/BMB/BMBpage/bmb_page.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://a1.exhibit-e.com/sites/palisades/img/bm_attractions2.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605233742/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1250&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1250&ResourceType=Site
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)