Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marion/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (4)[edit]

  • Closed as Not Promoted. Cam (Chat) 05:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination

Finally fixed all of the citation issues. Expanded lead. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

  • You might want to give the lead a quick check over: it looks like some text is missing and it's garbled. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have no clue what happened there. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to mention what happened on the second day there too. The suspense is killing me. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until this article is copy-edited by an editor new to the text (A4); provides context of the stage of the war in which this took place (A2); and sources are checked/fixed (A1).

  • This seems fine to me apart from the text, which rather lets it down. This article needs a good massage by an experienced copy-editor before promotion to A-Class. The opening sentence, for example, needs to say who the combatant parties are rather than explain that a battle is military engagement. Similarly, there's a typo in the second paragraph of the lead; and the third is clunky. Other issues: the text uses U.S. thoughout (MoS likes US with no points); the info box refers to "United States" but "CSA" (they should either both be abbreviated or in full).
  • The project has no shortage of fine ACW editors and it should easy to get one to help out. It would probably be a very enjoyable job for the right person! If you get stuck, leave me a message on my talk page.
  • Also, the dates need delinking. This'll get picked up at FAC so best do it now.
  • While I think of it, you might want to ask YellowMonkey or AnnaFrance to give it the once-over for dashes, hyphens and other tricky MoS stuff. That always comes up and I'm a bit rusty on it.
  • Also, the info box needs cites for all statistics.
  • Sorry, I meant to do this earlier.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that is left to do is to have someone copyedit it. If anyone would be willing, I'd be very happy. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Probably best to start asking around for a copy-edit: it might take a while to find one :) All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look myself, although I note that I'm possibly not the best choice for copyediting articles. Otherwise, I'd look into contacting editors which have added themselves to the MilHist Logistic's page. I've used those contacts before and normally with very good results. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message for Hal Jesperson, who says he'll take a look at the prose next week. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I asked JimWae whether he could give the article a quick read through and a gentle copy-edit prior to FAC. Here are his comments, from the article's talk page.
  • I have been asked to comment on the article. My comments are based on a quick read/skim only. I had difficulty maintaining interest even in the lede, and have not yet read the entire article, so these are just my early impressions. Part of my lack of interest in the article is just not being very interested in the topic of civil war battles; I am more interested in the politics. However, the main thing that would create a stir of political interest - that a former candidate for president of the USA was commanding on the side of the CSA - does not appear to be mentioned anywhere. I also think there could be a POV problem with calling Stoneman's offense a "raid into Virginia". This is not the language of the source, and "raid" can suggest a "short, rapid attack into someone else's territory to take spoils". I also found it annoying that I had to hunt the list of references to find that source - it makes it that much harder to care to check -- and not even alphabetical order could be used to shorten the search. Also, that rather short source (with barely a dozen facts in it) is referenced 10 times. I would not normally mention this last point, since it could seem overly-critical, but I am just commenting on my early impressions. I apologize that all my comments are negative, but I would need to read the entire article before committing myself to any positive comments. ;=) --JimWae (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now see that "Stoneman's Raid" is a very common name for the battle(s). I also see there is a template in the article WITH that name attached. Is this the CSA name? Does the USA have a different name for it? "Raid" appears 7 times in the article, but only once (in the template) as an actual name for the offense. Last sentence of first paragraph & first sentence of 2nd paragraph are repetetive. --JimWae (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: I have given the article a light copy-edit during which I realized that it provides very little context. Please add a paragraph or so of background explaining where the war had got to by this stage and why attrition/disruption of war effort had become so important. I'll add some material to this effect in the "Aftermath" section shortly, but I think it needs some material upfront for the benefit of the general reader. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reference to Heritage Preservation Services is, I assume, the National Park Service's CWSAC battle summary. This webpage has almost no information in it, so the wealth of footnotes citing it are probably not all valid."
  • "Rather than saying US War Dept, it is traditional to footnote the "Official Records" or OR and put the volume number in the footnote."
  • Sources (2): moving over a copy a message I left on your talk page. This needs addressing:
I noticed that the pages numbers you cite don't correspond to those in The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies at Cornell. Any ideas? --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. This article has improved significantly since its previous ACR. That said, a few issues:

  • Would it be possible to expand the "Aftermath" section to include an analogy (or at least a description) of the casualty figures for both sides? 120 can range from 1 killed and 119 wounded to 119 killed and 1 wounded...you aren't gonna have only one type of casualty.
  • There are issues with regards to reference format (only after commas and periods.[1]). These need to be fixed, as this is basic MOS compliance.
  • Overall citation density (especially in the coverage of the battle itself) is relatively low. I would suggest increasing this, as all content needs to be verifiable if you would wish to go to FAC at a later date.
  • The sixth reference in the "references" section is lacking a retrieval date
  • Could the second paragraph of the "outcome" section be reworded? It is essentially a copy-paste of the final paragraph of the lead
That said, this has significantly improved in the last few months. All the best, Cam (Chat) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--All finished. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, on second thought, that casualties section is rather choppy and breaks up the prose. I'd just change the casualty figures in the infobox to reflect the new figures: to read X killed, Y Wounded, Z declared MIA. Cheers, Cam (Chat) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • At least three statements lack references - both are the end of paragraphs (well, two are entire paragraphs).
  • I think the tags in the reference section should be removed. It makes it difficult to read. If you're interested in making the text a bit smaller I'd suggest using the refbegin and refend templates instead (wrap them with {{ ).
  • Some sections are really short, and perhaps they can be merged together.

JonCatalán (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Thanks for the input. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JonCatalán (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. Nice work. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


FA

The next step of this article is going to be FA. If you have any more comments that would be brought up in a FA review, please post them here. Thanks, --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you have taken an article through the process before, but my main suggestion is to do everything they ask as quickly as possible. Generally, you don't want to fight against their suggestions, unless they are blatantly incorrect (for example, if their suggestions do not comply with the manual of style). But, as long as you do everything within reason quickly you should have no issues. The article will probably go through a major transformation during the process, though. I would suggest getting the article copyedited by somebody, because this is always something that's brought up. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I second that advice. I have a pair of articles I'm preparing for FAC, but I'm finding myself having to wait until I have a period of time where I have the free space available to deal with issues brought up. Cam (Chat) 17:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is getting close but, in my view, will stumble at FAC. The major omission at the moment is context, which also needs attending too for ACR as otherwise it fails for comprehensiveness. Jim Wae and Hal Jesperson have left some comments Battle of Marion, which ought to be addressed. I can give the article another pass for prose, once other matters are resolved. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about not having been on lately. I've been really sick :). Probably be back Tuesday or Wednesday once I make up lots of schoolwork. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 14:18, 5 October 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.
  1. ^ like this
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Marion/archive4&oldid=1136064833"