Draft talk:The Battle of Evarts

Peyton Peer Review

"Comments From [Peyton Woodman]"

The intro is pretty good, short, concise, and give a good general idea of what is being explained. It would be nice to know what UMWA stands for the first time that it is used. For the second part you don't need to reiterate 4 deaths. In "Battle" section line 4 should be "jumped out" could also be worded better, also "shoot" not "shot". In "Causes" line 4 it occured in May but months latter it ended in June, did it last a year or just poor wording? Empty "Conclusions" Other than a few misspellings and odd phrasing it gets the information across and seems to me to be a pretty good overview so far. I read through your intended work so maybe get some of the expansions y'all intended to. Good citations though more sources should be found to expand a bit.

Woodywood196 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Kris's peer review

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

- Every topic discussed in the article was relevant to the Battle of Evarts.

Is there anything that distracted you?

- Everything is put together well but I was distracted a little as I wondered about citations during the reading.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

- I think different viewpoints are provided to understand the cause and effect relationship of the Battle of Evarts.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

- The citation links worked and were relevant however there were only two. A lot of effort went in to discovering the details that were covered in each section but I did not see the citations to indicate where the material came from, I think it may substantially back the facts presented if they were added.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference?

- The facts are supported by reliable reference however I think citations should be added to give credit to the sources and efforts of the project contributors to the page, you guys did a great job providing a lot of useful information.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

- The information is from a wide range of resources to give a collective viewpoint on the Battle of Evarts. I think each team member involved did a great job providing useful contributions to article.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

- I think everything was covered. Maybe some added details might improve upon the article such as noting the scrip when describing the company store for example but overall great job everyone!

Kpmia305 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

The introduction paragraph is choppy and some sentences can be combined. In the Opposing Forces paragraph, there are a lot of missing commas. In the Battle paragraph, there are a couple misspelled words and word tenses that don't agree. In the Causes paragraph, words like "horrible" and "atrocious" are words that hold bias and you need to sound more neutral. In all of these paragraphs, there are inadequate citations. The way the contents are arranged are a little awkward- for example, "causes" might make more sense before "battle". Overall, there is a good amount of relevant information in your page, it makes sense, and I think it's really close. Just some wording, grammar, and content arrangement to consider. I didn't find anything plagiarized. Mitchellka (talk)

Comments from Wren McDaniel

I think that the layout needs some working on, but that'll be really simple. I would suggest not having an introduction section but for that to be just at the top of the page. Y'all didn't have many citations and in the introduction section. I would have cited the fist sentence and the last. I would probably add a bit more to the intro section and some of the sentences in the fist section should be reworded. When you read it out loud they sound a bit off. The second section I would put under the battle section along with causes. Also the second sentence in the opposing forces doesn't make any sense and needs to be reworded or taken out. Again many sentences need to be cited especially since y'all quoted the Red Cross. Grammar wise in the battle section, take out the "a" before May, and I believe that motorcade doesn't need to be capitalized but I'm not sure. In the section causes, the word battle doesn't need to be capitalized. In the second sentence of the cause section who are you talking about? I think that the planned work section looks great and I think that it'll be a good idea to look into some personal stories about the Battle of Evarts. The Wikipedia page as a whole looks good, I would suggest re reading everything and rewording sentences that don't sound cohesive. I didn't seem to notice any biased as well. Also cite everything y'all have some really good facts in here and it'll be good to know where they came from. Wrenmcdaniel (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Joseph Taylor

I feel like the introduction could use a little bit more description. With that being said, maybe rearranging the structure of the sentences because they sound a little incoherent. In the "Opposing Forces" section, make sure to spell out UMWA and how they contribute to this battle; whether that be in this paragraph or in a separate one. I would capitalize the "Red Cross," since they are an organization. In the "battle" section, my only complaint is when Jim is discussed as "bad." in the "Causes" section, Harlon County Wars is hyperlinked when there is no page found. Overall, I think this is a good start to a Wikipedia page, but it needs to be revised and have information added to it. The tone is professional in some spots, but in others it could be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorjl8 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Caroline Turner

Overall, the information in your article is all relevant and it does not seem biased. However, you only have two sources used in the entire article and there seems to be some facts that should be cited. If it's not common knowledge, I would cite it. For the layout, I would suggest moving the "Causes" to the beginning of the article. Maybe "Causes," "Opposing forces," "Battle," and then "aftermath." Also, instead of having a header for your introduction, I would just put it above the other information. Here are a few grammatical changes I would suggest:

Introduction:

- "At the end of the short battle four were dead." change to: "At the end of the short battle, four were dead."

Opposing Forces:

- "There were numerous forces and factors at play during the Battle of Evarts, with some forces being privately armed police intending to shut the strike down and other forces refusing or denying help to the striking miners." Change to: "There were numerous forces and factors at play during the Battle of Evarts; some forces being privately armed police intending to shut the strike down and other forces refusing or denying help to the striking miners."

- "The red cross was even unable to help by citing the strike as an "Industrial dispute" and keeping clear of the movement." Change to: "The red cross was also unable to help by citing the strike as an "Industrial dispute," keeping clear of the movement."

Battle:

- "The 'Battle of Evarts' occurred on a May 5, 1931 in the morning." Change to: "The 'Battle of Evarts' occurred on the morning of May 5, 1931."

- "The final straw though was when Harlan County Coal Operators Association cut wages mines' by 10 %." Change to: "The final straw occurred when Harlan County Coal Operators Association cut wages mines' by 10%."

14:26, 27 March 2018

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnercr1 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 

Comments from Grayson B. Farmer

I think that the content that you have in your Wikipedia page is off to a good start. I would like to suggest moving the intro section to the top of the page and before the contents section. Within the Opposing Forces section of the article there were several run on sentences and I didn't see any citations. I would like to propose changing the section name from Battle to Battle of Evarts. Also there is a grammatical mistake in the sentence that states, "...he got ready to shot (should be changed shoot or fire his weapon) at the miners..." The overall sentence structure of this article could be changed to help readers comprehend the information better. There is no conclusion in this article and you need to cite throughout the article. You also need more than two sources. Farmergb (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)