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

Battle of Resaca

I updated this with help from Suggest bot using info from Friends of Resaca Battlefield link (ref 2). I would like to know, after I add the remainder of the info to the article, what else should be done? [[1]]

Cheers,

Buggie111 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After you add "the remainder of the info to the article," which is fatally short now, you should ask for the peer review to evaluate what you have added. If you aspire to write a good article or a higher classification, read a few of those battle articles that have achieved that state and see the levels of detail, citations, maps, images, etc., that are considered acceptable. Check out WP:WikiProject Military history/Showcase. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown

Images should have alt text added, see WP:ALT
The article is unbalanced at the moment with more focus on the background than the actual battle (although I note you say you are going to add more)
Add more detail to the 'battle' section as per above
Lead is too short and is repeatative e.g you start two sentences with 'the battle'...
Date format is inconsistent, in some places you use May 9, in others May 9th
The article is completely uncited... please add inline citations (at least one at the end of every paragraph) per WP:MOS

Once you have done that I would suggest requesting a b class assessment at WP:MHA#REQ or another peer review.

Good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Citations to web sources can be formatted/tidied up using the template {{cite web}};
Currently the sources that are listed in the References section would probably be more appropriately contained in an External links section;
On my screen there is a large amount of whitespace in the Background section due to the location of the first image below the infobox, which could be fixed by moving the image to the left or down, perhaps (it might only be an issue on my screen, however);
When you add more detail to the Battle section, I suggest that you try to use a mixture of paper (books) and web sources for balance;
I think alt text can be added to the image in the infobox pretty much in the same way that you've added it to the other images, just by adding "|alt=" beside the size parameter in the mark up code.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Happy editing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marine79

I fixed a handful of spelling and grammar errors.
If there is a battle map or diagram floating around somewhere that would be good to have for visual reference of all the locations mentioned in the article.
I agree that the battle section is pretty small compared to the background.
The other unit commanders in the article need to have their rank included.

Marine79 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the stuff listed into account, and will do so when I have time. I would like to close this review. Buggie111 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]