Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marion/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Marion (2)[edit]

Prior nomination can be found here

This article has been up once before. I will have more time to listen to comments and suggestions, so feel free to post any. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have moved this A-Class review per naming conventions. Woody (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
  • The big neutrality tag at the top needs to be resolved.
The neutrality tag at the top was listed because there were not enough Union sources. I do not agree with this tag, because there are about 2 more CSA references over Union references. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are outstanding "Citation needed" tags.
  • There are bare references. They need formatting per Wikipedia:Citing sources.
  • The WP:LEAD needs expansion I think.
  • I would put the Campaignbox below the infobox. It looks better to me.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images are sandwiched between text which is not allowed per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other."
  • Reference 15: www.wytheville.org/ Can't verify the text.
  • All in all I would suggest a thorough peer review first. What is the current status on the neutrality issue? It seems to be unresolved given the lack of edits since the talkpage post. It cannot be passed as A without that issue being resolved. Woody (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a peer review, it did not say anything that was stated above. I'll work some of this out, though. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Here are a few comments. I agree with the comments above, although I do not understand the one regarding images and text; the suggested link does not point to information about that subject.

  1. The infobox should include strength figures. You should provide citations for the casualty figures. The notation at the top should be "Part of the American Civil War".

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I found the background section to be unusual because it divided everything between Union and Confederate. It is much more typical in Wikipedia battle articles to describe the organization separately, but the sequence of events leading to the battle in a common place.
  1. What is the point of the notation (Local Time) in two instances?

This was suggested in the previous Assessment. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand the confusion that someone might think the Confederate army was working on Greenwich Mean Time. In the 2000+ ACW articles I know about, this is probably the only one that uses this convention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You have four External Links labeled with the same title.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In Wikipedia Civil War articles, we do not use superscripts for unit names (which you use inconsistently).

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia date formatting requirements do not allow referring to a date as "the 14th".

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. We usually minimize the use of the title General when referring to officers. The first time we refer to them we use their specific title, such as Maj. Gen. George Stoneman, but subsequent references are to Stoneman, not General Stoneman.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Your links to both Confederate and Union do not go to the correct articles.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Try to avoid conditional verb forms, such as "the salt works would be destroyed". Past tense is fine for history article.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Avoid overutilizing the term Rebels (vs. Confederates).

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In your Aftermath/Outcome section, I believe you are including campaign casualties, not simply this battle.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In my opinion, passages such as "Both armies yet again raised their battle cries" are colorful, but not usually found in encyclopedic writing. (There are some battles in which the Rebel Yell played a role in affecting Union morale, but I don't believe this is one of them.)

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In my personal style, which you are free to ignore if you do not wish your articles to look like mine, I list publications that are referred to by a number of citations in a References section and then use relatively abbreviated footnotes that consist only of the author and relevant page numbers, rather than repeating all of the publication information in each footnote. This does not apply to websites that are cited only once. In a related comment, I do not think I've ever seen a style of citation in which the name of the author came second.

Good luck with your review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will try and fix these, also. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Certainly, this article can't be promoted until that neutrality tag is removed. In my opinion, the lead should be expanded a bit and the current "Location" section should be a subsection of the "Background" section. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I talked about this above. The neutrality tag is only there because there are two more CSA sources than there are Union. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing this archive now as the above statement is untrue and I did not have an opportunity to address it until now. It has nothing to do with absolute number of sources, it is more a matter of the quality. POV tag will be going back up. Red Harvest (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Marion/archive2&oldid=1087269831"