Talk:Battle of Ridgefield

Battle of Ridgefield was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 12, 2010 Good article nominee Listed February 1, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 27, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the Battle of Ridgefield in April 1777, Benedict Arnold escaped unharmed after being pinned to the ground when his horse was shot? Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 27, 2011, April 27, 2013, April 27, 2018, April 27, 2021, and April 27, 2022. Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Connecticut High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) American Revolutionary War task force

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ridgefield. 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/20060922100129/http://web.cortland.edu/woosterk/locher.html to http://web.cortland.edu/woosterk/locher.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Ridgefield. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/newberymedal/newberyhonors/newberymedal.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512223025/http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/danbury_raid.htm to http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/danbury_raid.htm

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.

• 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) 05:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several homes were looted and set on fire in

Conclusion: 1. British victory. 2. Tactical, since its results were limited to the battle itself. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is very clear that there shouldn't be nuance. Adding "tactical" to the infobox is exactly that. the statement above may be sourced but it's a pretty low quality one that doesn't state anything about tactical success. The above statement is

WP:COPYVIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarletonic (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

All of your statements are based on your interpretation of the rules. Some of them rather far-fetched. I do not know what copyright violation and own reserach has to to with this. The infobox is based on the text in the article. The Brits won. If you do not like tactical victory, then it should be British victory. See the rule book: The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with British victory since it clearly was. The text of this article was amended to include tactical in this sentence at some point without adding a source. The Ridgefield article is clearly a copy of material from this article in 2010 with edits made for colour - compare the text here https://web.archive.org/web/20100725192648/http://www.ridgefieldct.org/content/42/249/1077.aspx to the version of this article before that page was published https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ridgefield&action=history&dir=prev&offset=20080521031544%7C213867373Tarletonic (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the interim I've updated the infobox to "British Victory" @Magicpiano You appear to have written most of this article so courtesy ping for any input you may wish to give here.Tarletonic (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarletonic If you just had explained that your objection was against tactical instead of giving me a number of unlinked acronyms, we could have avoided all the incrimination. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Creuzbourg. What incrimination? You found the policy I was referring to easily enough, and citing the MOS explains the edit perfectly adequately.Tarletonic (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarletonic I was referring to myself accusing you of bullying. Creuzbourg (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was unnecessary wasn't it.

WP:AGF Tarletonic (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It sure was. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. May 19, 2008 edit

   Earliest archive.org version of source cited at GA version

2. May 20, 2008 edit extremely well written, likely also cut-and-paste
3. More on May 21, 2008

Leaning towards cut-and-paste copyvio rather than backwards copy, because in another article around the same era, the same editor clearly was cut-and-pasting:

• William Erskine (General) May 20, 2008

  Source cited January 1, 2007

  Needs revdel, now a redirect.

  And cut-and-paste content was merged to new article January 7, 2009

The same editor has multiple large edits that also look to be cut-and-paste, but sources cited can't be found in archive.org SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the resolution of this, I just wanted to point out that significant sections (mainly under the Background and Danbury headers) of the version that passed GA contain text that was mostly written by me, which should still be usable. (A cursory examination shows that that version also contains text that is part of the above allegation, including portions of the main battle description, so fixing this would not be entirely trivial.) I do not have the bandwidth to take on fixing this. Magic♪piano 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all you've stated, which is why I listed this at the copyvio noticeboard ... I just don't know how to go about fixing this, since that editor popped in a lot of what looks like cut-and-paste. Need advice from copyvio admins, because fixing Erskine is even worse, and a CCI on that editor may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put back much of these sections. One has to be pragmatic about copyright cleanup. I won't revdel in case someone wants to bring back more non-copied content. MER-C 20:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]