Talk:Siege of Savage's Old Fields

	Siege of Savage's Old Fields 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 6, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

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

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 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 United States: South Carolina Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Siege of Savage's Old Fields/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will review this article shortly. Looks good! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides

   reliable sources

   where necessary:

   Off line sources AGF

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   Provides the historical setting

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Great article. I made a few edits which you are free to revert.[1] (Both by British and English spell checker spell "backcountry" as back country, so I changed it throughout the article.) I added some links for my own benefit so I could understand.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your edits look fine. Magic♪piano 01:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]