Wikipedia:Peer review/33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because when I nominated it for GA, one reader (who did not initiate review; he only gave it a quick read-over) said it was far too long and "overly detailed," without giving any specific reasons for his assessment. Other readers disagreed, and I just wanted to get a consensus opinion on it. I'm open to any reasonable opinions or suggestions for improvement! Thanks, Ecjmartin (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Ecjm, I've advertised the review over on the main Milhist talk page and on the Wikiproject Alabama talk page, so hopefully you should get a few reviews. Unfortunately, I don't get online much during the week, so I probably won't check in again until next weekend, but I will come back then and depending on how it is going, post a couple of suggestions. Good luck with taking the article further, and thanks for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much!! Your help and interest are greatly appreciated, and I look forward to hearing from you again soon. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A particularly tough image review[edit]

This is probably in excess of what's the minimal acceptable standard in a few places, but I think it's worth trying to get the best article possible, and part of that is good images. So, with that in mind:

  • File:Samuel Adams 33rd Alabama.jpg - Date is wrong; that needs fixed. File is very small, but Confederate soldiers are harder to find good photography of. Sharing the name of a founding father is not going to help when looking for other images, either. Likely as good as possible, if date is fixed, and information tidied slightly.
 Done. Got the date fixed, as best I could. Check it out if you would, and let me know if anything else needs doing, here. As you said, this isn't very good, but it's probably the best we can do.
 Done. Just did it.
 Done Also, Will post on your talk page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done. Godot wrote back and said he's backlogged and will need at least a week before he can check with the SI. Told him to take any time he needs; if he can't find anything better, we'll probably go with this (if that's okay by you) unless I stumble across a better one.
  • File:SAMWoodACW.jpg Terrible image, but half an hour searching the Library of Congress with various terms didn't find much.
Not done. I found one other image, but I'm not sure this one is much better than the one we already have. Take a look and tell me what you think: I'll mark this as "not done" until we decide.
 Done. Take a look, and tell me what you think.
 Done. Check my work, if you would, and tell me if this is acceptable. This is all still pretty new to me, but I think I got what you suggested.
 Done. Per your statement, here.
 Done. I didn't find anything better either, and figured I was lucky to have stumbled across this one.
 Done. Took me a couple of tries, but that was my own fault, LOL...

Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Part 2

I've noticed I've missed a few, so I've added them in here, and finished the article.

 Done. Per your statement, here.
 Done. Per your statement, here.
Not done. Standing by, per your statement.
 Done. Agreed. I felt really lucky to find this one, and that he was id'd as being in the 33rd.
 Done. Thank you!
  • File:Rosecrans at Stones River.jpg Ugly crop; bad colour balance, needs restoration, taken from an earlier scan with poor colour fidelity, but a better one has been done since. I'll push this one into my restoration queue.
Not done. Standing by, per your statement.
 Done. Per your statement here.
Not done. I had to LOL on this one, as I am the one who did the very bad crop-job on this one and otherwise posted it. I couldn't (and still can't) get to the image you mentioned, as my computer won't let me click on it to download it--I'm not very good at this downloading/documentation thing, so I'll have to plead "guilty" on this one... So where do we go from here with this one?
  • File:Battle Ringgold Gap Drawing.jpg No source link; Probably available at higher resolution if I find it.
  • File:Cleburne_Monument_Ringgold_GA.jpg Not terrible; could use rotation. Lots of noise, though, so it'd be nice to retake this - did you know that, so far as I'm aware, we have never had a featured picture of a memorial from the American Civil War from the Confederate states? The ACW is far too major of a part of America's history to leave out its commemoration.
Not done. Not sure here if you want to try to do something with this, given what you said here; if not, we can label it "done" if you agree. With this being a rather new monument, it'll probably be difficult to find a photo we can use apart from this one, unless someone happens to take a good one and posts it to Commons. And I did not know that--though before we started here, I didn't even know photos were "features" on WP! You learn something new every day!
 Done. Per your statement, here.
 Done. Per your statement here, unless we stumble onto something better.
 Done. Per your statement here.
 Done. Not sure what we can do here; like you, I wish we could have a better provenance for this photo. But since the guy claims it's his intellectual property and has released it unconditionally, do we just take him at his word and use it, or not? I'm not sure. I'm marking it as "done," but if you disagree, feel free to change the marking and/or delete the image altogether. You're a lot better-versed at this stuff than I am, for sure...
Thanks, Adam! This is awesome--I'm at work right now, but I'll get on this later this evening, and see what I can do. I deeply appreciate your help and candor here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries whatsoever! I mean, obviously, I'm going a step farther; I love how well-illustrated the article is. And, obviously, just because I say something is a bad picture doesn't mean that we'd actually be able to get a better one. There are cases where an image is so terrible that it pulls down the article's professionalism; but it has to be pretty terrible, and even the worst image in the article - the Lowrey - is a borderline case, probably adding more than it detracts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and labeled those photos we've already pretty much decided on keeping as "done;" that way, I can pass them over on the list easily as I come back to this over the next few days. The "not done" labels are for those we've started on but not yet finished; all the others are awaiting initial action--which should be coming over the next few days. Thanks again for all your help; you've been amazing!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Might be a little slow - A WWII veteran, who served on the USS Mahan, created an FA on Mahan-class destroyers. This is creating a rather sudden need for me to get off my arse and work on very specific images. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, my friend. I'm moving rather slow on this myself, so it's definitely no problem. I appreciate all of the help you have given. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, great work with the article. I have a couple of suggestions if you want to take it a bit further:
  • The following sentences probably need references/citations as they currently appear to be uncited:
  • "General Wood's brigade became separated from the other attacking units, and quickly found itself on its own, attacking the Federals on high ground against overwhelming odds."
 Done. Added reference.
  • "With Chattanooga now out of danger, the new Union commander could turn his attention to Bragg's army."
 Done. Deleted this sentence; it's not really needed, as it states the obvious.
  • "He would lead the Army of Tennessee throughout the first portion of the coming Atlanta Campaign."
 Done. Deleted this sentence, for the same reason as given above.
  • "Moving into the Dallas area on May 26, the Federals attacked Johnston's right flank at Pickett's Mill on May 27, where the 33rd Alabama would once more find itself in the center of the action."
 Done. Deleted the portion of this sentence that begins with: "...where the 33rd Alabama..."; provided a citation for the remainder.
  • "The regiment stopped at a nearby creek to fill their canteens, which gave the Federal defenders time to regroup and bring up artillery and reinforcements; these blasted the 33rd as they emerged from the creek valley and charged through a field and up a hill toward their lines."
 Done. Added reference.
  • New recruits would soon swell the regiment's numbers again, however, and it would return to battle many more times before the end of the war.
 Done. Deleted sentence; as with the others I mentioned, it states the obvious.

AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest converting this to a footnote:
  • "A map of the Jonesborough battlefield may be seen here [3]." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done. Moved to footnote.
Thanks, Rupert! I'll get to work on this tonight or this weekend. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your efforts with the article. When the peer review closes, you might consider asking for a copy edit from someone over at the WP:GOCE. After that, if you are happy with how you are travelling, a Military History A-Class Review might be your next port of call. (I am hoping that a few more people will stop by and contribute to the peer review, though, first as this will help set you up for success later.) Anyway, take care and have a great weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker 67's review[edit]

Review by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Very high level of detail, obviously you have put a lot of work in here. The result, though, is an absolutely enormous article of 15856 words (or 94K) which is well beyond the readable prose size of about 60K. There are a few things you could do, including condensing the summaries of other articles, or WP:SPINOUT the article into two or more articles. In general, I consider there are a lot of quotes whose content could be summarised more succinctly in prose without the need to quote someone.
  • You have a large Bibliography, so I suggest you use Template:Refbegin and Template:Refend to reduce the text size.
  • The refs are not templated using Template:Cite book etc, I suggest you template them, as they will then render in the standard way.
  • Some of the refs don't have a numerical identifier, DOI, ISBN, OCLC. You can get the book ones at Worldcat, the journal ones should be available online as well
  • use an endash with 200-300 in the Night Assault... section and the Chickamauga one as well, also the page range in the Morton McInvale citation in the Fire and maneuver section and the date range in the The Union Army: Cyclopedia of Battles citation in the Spring Hill section
  • there is quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKING, generally link once in the lead and once (at first mention) in the body
  • the external link checker says there is one dead link, and a few others which are redirects. Suggest you use permalinks
  • the citation style is very clunky, and results in a huge citation list. I suggest you use shortened footnote "sfn" citations, which will eliminate duplicated citations and reduce the space the citations take up.
  • watch for sandwiching of text between images on both the right and left
  • I suggest moving the non-historical/chronological "regimental details" such as the flag, uniforms, etc to the bottom, and starting the article after the lead with the recruiting, then working through the war in a chronological order.
 Done. SUPERB suggestion, sir. I actually wrote my article on the 43rd Indiana Infantry Regiment (my GGGF's regiment) that way, but didn't even think of that idea, here...
  • I suggest adding alt text to all the images. This is for accessibility reasons for vision impaired readers.
  • support the idea of a GOCE copyedit
  • the lead needs to summarise all the important aspects of the article. Given its size, I don't believe it does that now.
 Done. I think so, anyway (LOL)... Expanded the list of battles and campaigns; also added a paragraph about Matthews' contributions (which can be deleted, if need be).
  • I think the image licenses need some close attention, but that is not my forte so I haven't looked at them.
  • I would make the maps a standard size, the smaller ones are too small, even on my enormous screen

Great work so far, well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep plugging away from time to time, as circumstances permit. Thanks again for all your help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A huge thank you[edit]

A huge "thank you" to all of you who have contributed to this article, whether through changes to the article itself, feedback and insights in this peer review, or both. Peacemaker 67 (together with the other reviewers, as well) has left several excellent comments, which I will be looking into over the next several weeks and months. Many of the templates and other things he speaks of are altogether new to me (I'm not really a very "advanced" WP editor, unfortunately--I tend to write and edit at a very 'basic' level, LOL!), so I will have to take time to learn those, as well. Unfortunately, I am now neck-deep in a major book project of my own that's expected to keep me occupied for a year or more, so I will have to slow the pace here on my end considerably, and work on all of these things listed here as I have time and energy to do so. In the end, I have learned a great deal about what goes into making a truly "good" article in this encyclopedia, and I hope over the following months to bring 33rd Alabama up to the standards expressed here. Again, my deepest thanks to everyone who had contributed, or who choose to contribute in the future, to this article or this peer review. Cheers to you all! God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I sdhould have the images finished next week; just this month got eaten by theatre. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries--and no hurries, my friend! I've taken a hiatus from this myself, as I'm neck-deep in a higher-priority book project. Please take all the time you need; I'm just grateful for your interest and help. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)