Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Yazoo Pass Expedition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Peer review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saberwyn (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 13 February 2010 (→‎Anotherclown: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Yazoo Pass Expedition

This is a new article that I think meets B-class criteria, but I welcome independent opinions on the stuff I have written. PKKloeppel (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saberwyn

A couple of observations following a brief glance:

  • The lead section needs to be split into multiple paragraphs
Done. PKK
  • What was the aftermath of the expedition? What happened to the forces on each side after the expedition? Did the events lead to any changes in Union or Confederate strategy/tactics? Was there an impact on other events of the war?
Strangely, the expedition had no particular consequences, at least that historians have commented on. It seems to be regarded as merely one of the probes that Grant initiated until he hit on the correct approach of attacking Pemberton's left flank. I have my own ideas, which is why I got interested in it, but (a) the effects were on the Navy after the war, and (b) (more importantly) it would interject a point of view into the article. PKK
  • The article needs to be categorised: I'm no expert on US Civil War history, so I'll leave it for those more knowledgable.
Call this a blunder; I just forgot about categories. I have added some. PKK

More when/if I think of them.

-- saberwyn 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. See what you think of my corrections. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me. Otherwise looks quite good:

  • The references could be formatted with the templates {{cite book}} or
My opinion is that the use of this template is more trouble than it is worth. PKK
  • Should the date in the infobox be a range (e.g. 3 February – 12 April 1863)?
Dead right. Done. PKK
Done. PKK

Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for the attention. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown

  • The lead should be reworked as it is currently is a little lopsided. Perhaps turn it into two paragraphs
  • More images would be nice (but not required for B class)
  • Measurements should be given in both metric and imperial using the convert template, e.g. {{convert|2|mi|km}} ensuring that you use the adj=on parameter for adjectives
  • Consider using the author, date, page number format for short references (i.e. notes), with the full citation in the References section
  • Structure could be improved a little per WP:MILMOS. For instance many similar articles use the following headings:
1.The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously?
2.The prelude. What forces were involved? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?
3.A description of the battle. What tactics were used?
4.The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?

Anyway that's it from me. If you have any questions please ask. Anotherclown (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:
1. Am I being blindsided? I was criticized earlier for not having enough paragraphs in the lead.
2. I will look for pictures, but I have none at hand.
3. Metric conversions have now been supplied (unless I missed some). I will not use the {{convert}} template, however, because it has too many bugs.
4. I prefer to give a more extensive reference. So long as this is permitted by Wikipedia, I will continue.
5. I do not understand the last comment. I think the article has all the information you suggest; can you point out what you want?
PKKloeppel (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anotherclown's concern re: the lead is that the first two paragraphs are a on the small side, while the third is a bit meaty. Instead of rearranging things, may I suggest that a little bit of the detail be stripped back from that third para and (if necessary) re-added to the body.
I personally prefer the "last, title, p. " format for citations; although while longer, it makes it much easier to identify the source. The style is accepted (AHS Centaur and Attack on Sydney Harbour made it to FA with refs in this style). Might be an idea though to split them up so that each individual citation has its own ref tag (so insead of <ref>Shea and Winschel, ''Vicksburg Is the Key'', pp. 68–69. ORN ser. I, v. 24, p. 258 states that the date of building the levee was 1853.</red>, you get <ref>Shea and Winschel, ''Vicksburg Is the Key'', pp. 68–69</ref><ref>ORN ser. I, v. 24, p. 258 states that the date of building the levee was 1853.</red>)... it'll make it eaiser when the article expands and you find the same citation being used multiple times. -- saberwyn 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Yazoo_Pass_Expedition&oldid=343819755"