Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Marion/archive1
Appearance
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this article to become an A-class article, and I need to see what to work on.
Thanks, Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Carom
[edit]A few comments:
- You may find it useful to break up the "background" section. At the moment, it is a little difficult to parse, and might benefit from subheadings such as "tactical situation," "political situation," etc.
- Make sure you follow the citation guidelines throughout. The "first day of battle" section is very sparse.
- In the "aftermath" section, it may be useful to discuss the larger consequences of the battle, if any.
- In many places, a slightly more encyclopedic tone is necessary.
- A copyedit would be useful, as the prose is occasionally choppy and difficult to read.
Hopefully these thoughts are helpful. Carom (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oberiko
[edit]- I'd take the pictures out of the infobox, it's not something I've seen anywhere else.
- I don't think you need the header on the "Outcome" sub-section
- The Chronology, having three points, really isn't all the useful and is basically summarized in the introduction
- There are to many infoboxes on the bottom, most of which are barely related to this event. I'd recommend scrapping them and putting a campaign box under the main info box. Oberiko (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Automated
[edit]Here's some automated suggestions I got using User:AndyZ's script. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 16 km, use 16 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like:16 km
.[?] - Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Cam
[edit]- The "Territorial Changes" part in the infobox needs some fleshing out. "Southwest Virginia" is a fairly general term. Personally, I would simply add more detail to that one element of the infobox, without making it overly long.
- Considering the size of the article, there are very few citations. When I have more time, I'll add the "Citation Needed" clips to the article. Density of citations is also very low in some of the sections
- I'm going to have to agree with Carom. the "Aftermath" Section needs a lot of fleshing out.
- In the infobox, you need to find a statistic for "strength". The casualty figures tell me that this was a relatively small battle. however, I would prefer to have an actual figure for the strength of the opposing armies.
- There are places, especially in the "first day of the battle section", that are very difficult to fluently read.
- There are other places, mainly the opening of the "Second day of the battle" that read too much like a historical novel. I would suggest reformatting this to fit the prose of an encyclopedia, rather than a historical novel.
- I checked the history of the page, and it was once 20,000 bytes in size. Now, it's only 16,000. I would investigate why this is, and consider adding back in some of the stuff which was cut from earlier versions, so as to flesh out many aspects of the article.
- Lastly, the "outcome" section is almost contradictory at times. The Union forces achieved a tactical victory, and yet the rebels had inflicted heavy casualties against the Union Army. This is further contradicted by the casualty figure in the infobox. A tactical victory usually means that one side inflicted more casualties on the other. I, personally, would qualify this as a Tactical Confederate Victory, Strategic Union Victory.
Good luck carrying the article forward. All the best