Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marion/archive1

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 (1)

I've been working on this article for quite a while, and I think that it could become an A-class article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s)
- You mention that General Stoneman had his plan approved by his supior officers, but I do not see those officers mentioned anywhere in the article.
  - Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider placing your inline citations after your punctuation marks rather than before them, IM(H)O this tends to make articles look better.
  - Done - I actually used an automated script to correct them, and I haven't checked it, but I have faith in the script. ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have articles here for any of the officers or forces in the "preperations" section?
  - DoneRedmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the section "preperations" you make mention of 3:00 AM. I assume that was the local time, but it would probably be a good idea to put such a mention in the article.
  - DoneRedmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of my favorite battles. I will try and get you an Order of Battle to use for the article. However, I think the citations need to be properly formatted before I can support for A-class. Shouldn't take that long. MrPrada (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Really needs a copyedit for tone. You might also find that a more varied layout of images (perhaps some on the left?) adds to the visual appeal of the article. I would also see if a little more could be squeezed out of the lead. Carom (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also suggest adding the next-level above campaignbox that includes Stoneman's Raid campaign as one of its subcampaigs, if there is one. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The graphics and such are nice, and the article has a good start with appropriate format. But there are still many issues:
- The article appears to have been created from primarily CSA sources. Stoneman's O.R. report and other Union or neutral sources should be examined and cited where appropriate.
  - Done Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC) One of my main sources was primarily Union, but there are more.[reply]
    - This is not by any means "done"! The tone of the article is POV'ish and needs a rewrite that matches reality more closely. While I don't believe the POV is intentional, it is one sided in its present form. I've refrained from tagging it as such so far, but it is beginning to appear necessary. Red Harvest (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stoneman's claimed accomplishments as result of the raid should probably be given some weight. Marvel states that the lead mines weren't back in service for six months. The salt operations were out of commission for at least a month and the railroads, depots, and locomotives of the region were destroyed so that salt couldn't be transported even if it could be made.
- The sources that claim many Union charges and great carnage in their repulse fail to explain the low casualties. The intensity clearly wasn't there for such a long battle. Makes for a great romantic battle story, but the butcher's bill doesn't support it.
- I'm also wary of the article's claim that the expressed primary motive for the raid was the massacre. The leadmines, iron works, and saltworks and associated rail transportation were all primary infrastructure targets. Some sort of primary sources/quotations should be added to support the assertion.
- Since the Saltville battles are only a stub and there is no campaign article, the Marion article is serving for the whole raid. As such the events leading to the battle probably require more description to explain the paths coherently. (I've cleaned up many of the incorrect location listings already.)
- The arrow on the map box does not represent the direction of the raid. Stoneman left from Knoxville, not West Virginia.
  - Done Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better, but the arrow is now coming from Arkansas and entering Kentucky, so it will need another revision. Red Harvest (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Troop counts of combatants at key points should be mentioned. Red Harvest (talk) 22:44, 5 March 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.