Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter

Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter

This article has been rated "start" class, but I completely re-wrote and expanded it and I believe that it deserves reassessment. As a relatively new user of Wikipedia, I am also interested in a critique of my work and suggestions that will enable me to write top quality articles. This is the first article that I have submitted for review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallchief (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 November 2010

Anotherclown

Overall this is a good article, although there is probably a bit more to be done to get it to B class. Specifically:
- A number of sentences at the end of your paragraphs are completely uncited, you should consider adding inline citations for these;
- Some of your paragraphs are very short and should be linked together for better prose (I have been bold and had a go at a couple of these);
- You should consider using the structure suggested in WP:MILMOS/C (specifically: Background, Prelude, Battle, Aftermath) for article structure; and
- The infobox needs to be completed: specifically adding commanders, force strengths, casualties etc (where available). Anotherclown (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I'll deal with those issues. Smallchief 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness

Not a bad article start, but there are some issues.
- Your summary of the Boxers doesn't quite sync up with the Boxer Movement entry, especially in terms of the origin of the movement. You might consider revising it or just going with a link to the Boxer movement.
- Some of the wording is awkward. For example, the sentence "The Chinese first attempted to extinguish the foreigners in the Legation Quarter by fire." really doesn't work for me in terms of tone. It might be better to say something like "The besieging forces first attempted to break the Legation Quarter by setting fires around its perimeter."
- Agree with the comment about more citing. One example is the comment about "trigger-happy foreign soldiers" alienating the Chinese population. Also, the term "trigger-happy" might be replaced with "unrestricted firing" or something similar.
- Agree that more force strength information is needed. It may be difficult to come by for the Chinese forces, but the Legation strengths are out there and are well-documented.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I'll follow your useful suggestions. But the "Boxer Rebellion" article -- which you call the "Boxer movement" -- is a mess and getting worse every day. The formerly good parts of it have been corrupted by ideologues. Smallchief 20:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    - If that's the case, then you might want to cite from another source or simply pull the detailed discussion of the Boxers.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

This is a very interesting article and very close to B class in my opinion. Aside from the points noted by Anotherclown and Intothatdarkness, I have the following suggestions. These are mainly just nitpicking style comments and aren't really major, but if you are keen to take the article to GA and beyond they will eventually become important:

the sub headings should only be fully capitalised if they are proper nouns per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Section headings. Thus "Chinese Attacks and Resolve" should be "Chinese attacks and resolve";
Alt text could be added to the images. This allows sight impaired people to hear a description of the image with appropriate software;
there is some inconsistency in use of endashs and emdashes, for instance in the first paragraph of the Rescue section, endashes and emdashes are used interchangably. Either is fine, but consistency is the key;
there is some inconsistency in the presentation style in the Notes, for example "Fleming, p. 118" and "Fleming, 203". Either style is fine under Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but consistency is the key;
in the Notes section, the page ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH, e.g "Thompson, p 7-8" should be "Thompson pp. 7–8";
the bare url chain (Note # 27) could be hidden using a template such as {{cite web}} per WP:LINKROT. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smallchief

I thank all three of you for your suggestions. I intended to rework the article with those suggestions as a guideline. But, unfortunately, I see that the material from the article deleted by Anotherclown has been re-added verbatim by the original contribtor. I wouldn't call the added material vandalism, but rather a misleading use of sources to press a particular POV -- which in this case is an exaggeration of the military prowess of General Dong and his "Kansu Braves." The same bias by the same contributor has impacted adversely other articles on the Boxer Rebellion. I don't see much benefit in putting more work into the article if it's going to be mangled at every turn. What's the opinion of more experienced wiki-heads in situations like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallchief (talk • contribs) 11:06, 13 November 2010

The best approach is always to try to talk to the editor involved, although this is not always successful. If you haven't already done so, leaving note on the editor's talk page discussing your concerns might be a way to engage the editor in question and start a collaboration. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]