# Talk:Siege of Boston

Is it 1941 or 1901 that Evacuation day has been celebrated since?  This page conflicts with the entry on the holiday's page.  My guess is 1901 is correct, but it would be good to get a source to back that up.  WilliamKF 15:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the words "like poop" form the end of the Fortification of Dorchester Heights section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.36.116.37 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Washington reoccupied Breed's and Bunker's hills without opposition, however James Thomas Flexner states in George Washington in the American Revolution (1775-1783) "the sentinels who were visibly manning Bunker Hill had proved, after a gingerly approach and close inspection through glasses, to be dummies holding ruined muskets." This statement wold indicate that prior to the evacuation that at least Bunker Hill and probably Breed's Hill were still in British hands.  Danwild6 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Red4tribe (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Boston/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi. I'm going to review this GA Nom. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It needs work. I'm putting this On Hold for now, until problems with organization, word choice, relevent information, and pictures (Requirements 1, 3, and 6) are taken care of:

This paragraph, from the escalation section:

"During this period of time, many Loyalists who lived outside of Boston left their home and fled into the city. Most of them felt that it was not safe to live outside of the city.[8] Some of the men, after arriving in Boston, joined the army.[9]"

Why didn't all of them feel unsecure outside the city?
Some of the... Loyalist men joined the army? right? also, which army? picky picky :)
Another picky thing: in the caption for the second pic, you write that some of the info is incorrect. Then why put it on wikipedia if it's wrong?! LOL that info's already on the pic's info page, so I'd get rid of it on the article page. But that's just me.

Question about:

"When the Americans heard of this [refering to Gage getting hay], they took the alarm, and the militia came out."

they took the alarm??
came out from where?
I don't think the sentence "(The battle was somewhat misnamed since most of the fighting was done at Breed's Hill next to Bunker Hill.)" is needed in this article, especially since you don't actually describe the battle in detail.
RED LINKS! Fix em all!
Question: in Stalemate, you say "Trenches were built". Aren't trenches dug? Just a question; I'm not up on my military jargon (remember this for later).
In Stalemate, you say "The working parties were fired on from time to time, as well as the sentries." Who are the working parties? and who was shooting?
In Stalemate: "On July 30... the British drove in an American advanced guard, ..." Drove in? Again, military jargon, but it might just be me.
Stalemate is kind of a bunch of jumbled skirmishes, especially compared to earlier sections. Are the small battles all relevant to the Seige of Boston (example: proposed attack on Canada, Lechmere's Point). Some could be cut down and the rest could be organized into separate paragraphs, which specify how the event relates to the siege. You need to do this to fulfill GA requirement 3.
Three things for this paragraph in Stalemate:

On November 29, Captain John Manley, commanding the schooner Lee, captured one of the most valuable prizes of the war—the British brigantine Nancy carrying much ordnance and military stores for British troops in Boston. The arms, powder and ammunition proved invaluable to the Continental Army during the fortification of Dorchester Heights the following March.

what's ordnance?
is the Dochester Heights thing even relevant?
is this event even relevant (did it happen in Boston Harbor during the seige? if so, that should be noted.
At the end of Stalemate, you have a paragraph about the winter problems, then you immediately ignore it and start a new paragraph about Washington. You might want to add a transition.
This paragraph at the end of Stalemate (I emphasized some stuff):

In February, when the water had frozen between Roxborough and Boston Common, Washington thought that in spite of his deficiency in powder he would like to try an assault by a rush across the ice; but his officers again advised against it. His anxiety to risk such a hazardous enterprise arose from his knowledge of the weak condition of his army, which he felt might melt away during the winter, and the ease with which Howe might at any moment break up the patriot besieging line. He had not yet learned how completely he could trust to Howe's inactivity ; and he abandoned the dash across the ice with great reluctance in exchange for a more cautious plan well suited to the British general's temperament, and which was crowned with success

His: Washington wanted to attack on the ice, but his officers didn't. Then you say "his" anxiety arose from... Whose anxiety? Washington's? From what it sounds like, he was all gung-ho for attacking.
the army would melt away? LOL I know what you mean, but you might want to consider different word choice that makes them sound less like snowmen
temperment?: why is important that Howe liked washington's plan? could you describe the new plan in as much detail as you described the ice attack, so we can understand how it was met with success?
POV in sentence "On March 5, in an amazing feat of deception and mobility..." (in End of Seige).
Sentence in End of Siege:

On March 8, a letter was sent to Washington that if allowed to depart unmolested, they had no intention of destroying the town. The letter was not personally addressed to Washington, and therefore, he never received it, but word was spread around

Who sent it? I'm assuming the British, but was it Gage, or Howe, etc.
It was sent to Washington, but it wasn't sent to Washington? see bold text. Who was it addressed to then?
The picture of the ox train is in the wrong section; it needs to be moved down to End of Seige. Likewise, IMO the picture of the gravestone needs to be removed because it is about a non-battle casualty that doesn't have much relevance to the movement and is not at all mentioned in the article.
Sentence in End of Siege: "On March 10, Howe issued a proclamation ordering the inhabitants to give up all linen and woolen goods that could be used by the colonists. " The inhabitants of Boston, right? Why? So he could stop the rebels from using them? Plz clarify
Why is it relevant that they left on St. Patrick's day?
Last sentence: why is it relevant that they left for NYC?
Well, that's about it. Fix those problems and reply on my talk page when you're done. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Unfortunately, this still has a couple of glaring problems that need to be fixed before it's a GA:

The lead needs to be at least two paragraphs, preferably three, per WP:LEAD, and
The first picture and the picture in Stalemate need more info (see tag on image pages).
Also, below are a couple more of my picky recommendations; take 'em or leave 'em. 

IMO, the Background section could use with a few lines about the revolutionary war and the seige in relation to the war. I mean, it's implied, but it'd be useful to say something to that effect. Right now the article just jumps right into the events of the seige, without giving a lot of background. Of course, you're the wikiexpert! ;)
I removed the quote " and "gallantly waded through the water, and soon obliged the enemy to embark under cover of a man-of-war..."" from the end of the paragraph starting "November 11, 1775" in the Stalemate section because it was in a different tense as the earlier sentences and it wasn't incredibly relevant. But I'm just leting you know.
I still have a problem with the second-to-last paragraph in Stalemate, which says Washington wanted to attack, his officers recommended against it, and Washington's anxiety stopped him from attacking. I'm a little confused; is it possible to clear that up for non-Military history people like me?
fix the sentence about the letter sent to Washington in End of the Seige:though clearly addressed to Washington, the letter was not personally addressed to him

*In evacuation, you say "A loyalist, Crean Brush, was authorized to take whatever he wanted in return for certificates, which were, at that point, entirely useless." Why? that might be relevant to the article. once again though, you're the expert! :)

Also in evac, you write "On March 17 the wind, once again, turned favorable", but nowhere in the section prior to that does it say that the winds were favorable.
And that's about it! I think after these improvements, everything will be ship-shape! Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great... except... the lead should be a summary of the entire article. Right now it's a lot of background information, which is perfect for the Background section! I'd move anything that can go into background from the lead into background, then summarize the article in the lead, and that's it! I promise! LOL but really you've done a great job improving this article. Once you get those lead problems worked out, I'll promote this to GA. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job! I think you got it all! Keep working to improve this article and others like it. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
1.well-organized2.reliable refs3. relevant info4. NPOV5. stable6. Pictures have tags

The article text cites April 19th as the start of the siege, but the page is linked from April 20 and not April 19.  Which is correct?  Did it start overnight?  Both the Siege of Boston and April 20 pages list the start as "after the battles of Lexington and Concord." Flwyd (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it really depends on what you mean by siege, and when the conditions around the city of Boston qualify as a siege.  By the end of the day on the 19th, militia forces had effectively blocked access from both Boston and Charlestown to the rest of the mainland.  Whether they would have contested attempts by British forces to cross either neck is a theoretical question. Magic♪piano 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathanael Greene: A Biography of the American Revolution
"Greene and his Rhode Islanders were placed under the command of Major General Charles Lee" (http://books.google.com/books?id=MfEpwjscMUEC&pg=PT38)
"Now on April 1, 1776 ... He had as yet done nothing spectacular" (http://books.google.com/books?id=s3ACB79MSdAC&pg=PA30)
WikiParker (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur, contra the Greene-pushing anon editor.  From what I've read, Lee, Gates, and the Massachusetts generals were more relevant to this action than he was. Magic♪piano 01:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

At the start of the seige, did the British seize any American-owned ships used later in the evacuation?  Presumably not before then, but maybe after, just before the evacuation?  Were the owners compensated or promised compensation for any ships seized?  Guessing that they would have paid for at least some of any ships seized, as many must have belonged to overt Loyalists.
Did the British leave any or many ships to their owners upon evacuation?  Presumably they would seize or scuttle any ships that could be converted to war use.  Would there have been compensation for those?
What maritime commerce (either inter-colonial or international) was possible for Boston after the seige?  It sounds like they had safe commerce with other places along the New England coast.  Is that right? Wondering how things worked for Boston after the seige and how hard the recovery was.
Not looking for in-depth answers---just the basic facts in a handful of sentences.  Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

[copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&action=edit&section=42 ]
The British were never "defeated" at the Siege of Boston. There were no battles; the total number of casualties that occurred after the Americans brought in the guns from Ticonderoga were a handful. Your statement that the British were "defeated" at the Siege of Boston doesn't even conform to the evaluation of the Siege in the Wikipedia article on that subject! 
Even in Boston itself the annual celebration of the raising of the Siege of Boston is not called "Victory Day": it's called "Evacuation Day". When the British made the strategic choice to "evacuate" Boston they had that city entirely in their power, and Washington fully expected that they would burn the city before they left - there would have been absolutely nothing he and his army could have done to prevent them from doing so. So I don't see how anyone of sound mind can call this a "defeat" of the British! Sieges are an expensive military operation that often cause more casualties to the besiegers than to the besieged. Even though the American artillery on Dorchester Heights was unable to sink a single British ship in Boston Harbor, the British commanders decided that it would be far wiser to move to the pro-British city of New York and wide-open New York Harbor where their ships could maneuver much easier than in the treacherous island-and-shoal-ridden Boston Harbor. By doing so they effectively cut much more radical New England off from the rest of the rebellious colonies. By moving their naval operations north to Nova Scotia they could allow the sailors to disembark in a non-hostile area for training and relaxation while at the same time reducing the length and increasing the security of their supply lines. It was a wise strategic retreat and nothing more. 
It is said in another message here that you are a "professor of history". I don't suppose you are a professor of *military* history.
IWPCHI (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)IWPCHI

Yes see Richard J. Jensen.... I was a professor at the US Military Academy West Point & have published books on Civil War & WW2. "On March 17, 1776, British forces are forced to evacuate Boston following General George Washington’s successful placement of fortifications and cannons on Dorchester Heights, which overlooks the city from the south." says History Com= the British SOLDIERS in Boston could not be protected from American artillery, so they were outgunned and retreated from a major strategic location. Joseph Ellis says the Dorchester Heights guns "placed Howe’s garrison within range of American artillery, thereby forcing Howe’s decision to evacuate or see his army slowly destroyed." [Ellis, "Washington Takes Charge:" Smithsonian (Jan 2005). James Flexner says, "Historians have praised George Washington's success in forcing the British out of Boston in March, 1776" American Heritage (Dec 1967). Here's an excerpt from Military History (Dec 2002) p 88: "Neither Howe's guns in Boston nor those on Royal Navy ships could be sufficiently elevated to threaten the new American batteries on Dorchester Heights. "The rebels have done more in one night than my whole Army would have done in a month," Howe lamented as he looked for a way out of his predicament. Like his predecessor Gage, Howe was loath to throw whole regiments away in a vain and bloody attempt to dislodge the Americans, but he thought it necessary to try. A short but violent storm subsequently intervened to halt preparations for such an assault. At that point, Howe saw no option but to begin arrangements to quit Boston. General Howe threatened to set fire to the city should American artillery harass the embarkation of troops and equipment onto British ships. The British troops' departure, however, was quite acceptable to Washington, who allowed the evacuation to proceed unmolested. Howe himself left Boston on March 17, an event still commemorated in the city. The British departed in such haste that they left 250 artillery pieces behind." 10:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gcocucci2 (article contribs).

Change "2nd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Jones" to "2nd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General James Robertson"
Change "4th Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General James Robertson" to "4th Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Valentine Jones"
Change "3rd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Paget" to "3rd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Sir Robert Pigot"
Change "Commander of Artillery & Engineers, Colonel Cleveland (commanding officer of the 4th Battalion)" to "Royal Arillery and Engineers, Colonel Samuel Cleaveland"
Remove "33rd Regiment of Foot"
Remove "53rd Regiment of Foot" ColtF33 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)