Jump to content

Talk:Wytheville Raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wytheville Raid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 19:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this article a GA Review. It is massive so will take me quite a while, I'll probably work through each section as it occurs in the article to keep concerns & fixes straight. Shearonink (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this long article. I work full time, and may not be able to devote a lot of time to it until the weekend—other than a portion of my lunch hour. TwoScars (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    *The "sought their own safety" quote & various references are repeated twice - Note #15(Ref 34, 43) and Note #23(Ref 34, 43, 33, 1, 62). I am not certain that the information and refs need to be repeated in two separate Notes. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I plan to replace the Note #15 with a simple citation from Sutton or Johnson that confirms that sentence. TwoScars (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced the note with a citation from Sutton. Added portions of the note to Note #23, which is now Note #22. TwoScars (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All looks good now. Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    The following References have various issues:
    • Ref #27 is dead.
    Fixed the dead link. TwoScars (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The URL for Ref #24 has apparently moved - please update it.
    Not sure what you mean. 24 is Hill 2014, pp.84–85. It has no URL because it refers to a book listed in the References. I can try to find another source to cite if you do not like Hill. TwoScars (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea either frankly - apparently Checklinks gave me a false negative on one of the references. They all look fine now. Shearonink (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    There is a large area of commonality with wvculture.org/history/sesquicentennial but this is because of quoted material that is clearly set off with quote marks in this article. The one quote that needs to be adjusted is in Note #23 where "sought their own safety" is not finished with a closing quotation mark. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the missing quote. TwoScars (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Yes, I think so. Shearonink (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Stable...very stable. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Good job on getting all the image-permissions down right. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am reading through the article a couple more times today. I think there is some more cleanup that could possibly be done, please see "Bits & pieces" section below. Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TwoScars: This article is now passed to a WP:GA status. It was a pleasure to read - well researched, nicely-written prose, timeline easy-to-understand, very thrilling - congrats. Going forward possible improvements could be perhaps adding some images of the Civil War-era Wytheville main street or maybe seeing if the Raid had any long-term impacts on the war-effort either on the Confederacy or on the Union side. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. - I do see that a future Governor of Virginia - Henry Carter Stuart - was born in Wytheville in 1855...I have to wonder if he saw any of the fighting during the Raid... Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bits & pieces

[edit]

Why is that one William C. Davis ref hidden? Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good question! I probably thought I would use it, but either never did or eliminated it later. I have removed it from Wytheville Raid (and added to my sandbox in case I need it). TwoScars (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following sentence needs to be adjusted - the phrasing is somewhat out-of-order & confusing:

  • After the incident, the men were ordered to fall back to the pike that was located between Raleigh Court House and the county seat (at that time) of Wyoming County, Oceana.

to something along the lines of:

  • After the incident, the men were ordered to fall back to the pike that was located between Raleigh Court House and Oceana, Virginia (the then-county seat of Wyoming County). Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to: After the incident, the men were ordered to fall back to the pike that was located between the West Virginia communities of Raleigh Court House and Oceana. (At the time, Oceana was the county seat of Wyoming County.) TwoScars (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Not sure if the parentheses are necessary. TwoScars (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • An irrelevant fact I learned while visiting Wytheville: I thought Colonel Toland's name rhymed with "Poland", but I was told his family pronounces it as rhyming with "Holland". I can't put that in the article, since I have no written proof. TwoScars (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{archivebottom]]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wytheville_Raid&oldid=1208484847"