# Talk:Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1775–1776

This review is transcluded from Talk:Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1775-1776/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. It clearly explains to me why Benedict Arnold had so much trouble, which I never fully understood before. I have only a few, minor comments"

Committee of Safety (in the lead) and Fort George (Early Revolutionary War) need disambiguation
Lead
"He then resigned is Massachusetts commission over command disputes at Ticonderoga after the arrival of additional Connecticut militia troops." - not clear if the arrival of additional Connecticut troops cause the "command disputes", or if he wait until they arrived before he resigned.
I assume that "courts martial" is the correct plural, instead of court martials?
Quebec expedition
How did Arnold come to be using an inaccurate map given to him by a British military engineer?
Later military career
"His British military service consisted of an expedition to raid American supply depots in Virginia in 1781, whose major action was the Battle of Blandford, and then a raid against New London, Connecticut" - the "whose" refers to "expedition"?
This article is is very well written. However, I advise getting a peer review if you intend to take it to FAC.  I see no flaws, but the FAC people have different standards.
Xtzou (Talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I think this article (and the next one in the series) are needed to show in detail what might have motivated Arnold's defection, so it's good to know I succeeded in this one.  I think I've made changes that address your concerns -- I will note that the means by which Arnold acquired Montresor's map and journal are not described, even in sources I checked that are dedicated to the expedition.  (It certainly wasn't by asking Montresor -- he was on the other side of the lines in Boston.) Magic♪piano 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  Clearly written; grammatically correct

B. MoS compliance:  Complies with basic  MoS

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  Well referenced

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  Sets the context

B. Focused:  Remains focused on the subject

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

Great job!  Xtzou (Talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Magic♪piano 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)