Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Marion

Battle of Marion

I am wondering what needs work before this is promoted to A-class. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cam

First off, some things about citations and referencing:

• The footnotes should simply be formatted (Last Name, p. #). The year of publication only matters if there are multiple books by that author.
• "National Parks Service" is an iffy ref. At the very least, it requires a web-link.  Done -- Added url.
• The "Mosgrove" ref needs a page #
• "pg" should be "p" in all situations
• I've gone through and fact-bombed the article. The quotes in particular are in need of stronger referencing
• the websites in the "references" section should instead be incorporated directly into the footnotes section, as is done here.

Alright, that's better, but now they need to be combined back into a single ref using the same "ref-name=" format as the other refs. Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Second off, some things about prose:

• The prose could use a general copyedit (which I am in the gradual process of doing;). Of particular note:
  • "and the salt works were destroyed by the Union forces.[22]" - were there multiple salt-works? If so, then this is correct. If not, it isn't.

--Salt Works (plural) ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that clarifies things. Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• • There's a lot of unnecessary wordiness & link-words that can be eliminated.

Removed unneeded links and a few words. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, some things about content:

• The "Background" section could use some expansion, particularly in examining the previous campaigns.

better. Cam ^(Chat) 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 01:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, it's generally considered poor form to strike another reviewer's comments. Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)