Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Alamo/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Battle of the Alamo

edit
Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just finished a large revamp of this article. I've consulted a great many sources and believe that the article now reflects current scholarship. I hope to nominate the article soon for an A-class review and then FAC. There are still several images that I plan to add soon, and the article still needs a final copyedit. I am most concerned right now that the information flows well, that it is not confusing to people who are unfamiliar with the topic, and that it is appropriately neutral (not favoring one side over the other). I welcome any comments to improve the article. Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. I also looked at prose flow and neutrality and some copyedit things that jumped at me!
    • First sentence, suggest replace the second "in" with "at" to avoid repetition.
    • Last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead feels very tacked on, perhaps reword it to include the information in the previous sentence?
    • Suggest culling a bit of the detail in the lead, such as "divided into four columns" and other details. You want to summarize the whole article, not necessiarly give details on the exact dispositions of the battle. This level of detail in the lead trips the reader up and interupts the prose.
    • Definitely needs a copyedit, prose feels choppy. The sentences flow from one to the other, but they are often choppy.
    • Background section - For those who did not suffer through Texas History in school, suggest explaning that San Antonio de Bexar is present-day San Antonio.
    • Background section - Name the governor who was impeached?
    • Background section - 18-lber? I think you mean 18 pounder (grins)
    • Seventh paragraph of Aftermath - first sentence .. missing something?
    • As far as balance, it seems pretty balanced to me, except how is this covered in Mexican sources, for the Legacy section? Suggest that that is an aspect that should be covered, also any Mexican historian's accounts.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 20:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

  • Image:Jimbowie.jpg - The source indicates ambiguity about the author of the painting. This should be reflected in the image description.
  • Image:San Antonio 067.JPG - We don't know who the "me" or "I" is for this image - is it the uploader? We don't know if the uploader has the ability to release the copyright.

I'll add more on the words later. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found the first two paragraphs of the lead slightly confusing - I had to reread them about three times to make sure I understood the timeline. I wonder if a sentence or two describing the battle to come would help - give the reader a roadmap so that it is easier to follow all of the details?
  • Would it at all be possible to explain in a few more sentences or even a paragraph why there was a Texan Revolution and to explain, for example, that Texas was not a US state? I feel that this battle is so well-known that, ahem, quite uninformed people might read the article.
  • The second paragraph of the "Background" section begins by talking about an invasion of Mexico, but it was not clear to me why these men decided to invade Mexico.
  • I was a bit confused by the heading "Investment" - is that because I'm not a military history buff?
  • Overall, there is a lot of detail in this article, particularly in the "Prelude" and "Siege" sections. Honestly, though I wanted to learn more about the battle, I had to wander away from the article a few times and come back, so that I could concentrate. However, this could just be my lack of interest in things like how far shacks were from the Alamo walls and when precisely each hut was burned. :)
  • What do you think about adding a timeline to the article (see, for example, Panic of 1907)? It would have helped me follow the detailed narration a bit better.

These are just general thoughts, not a line-by-line review. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag07 peer review

edit

Take it or leave it. I just saw your message on the wikiproject texas page, and figured id give my 2 cents:

Much shorter intro would be nice. I think it could be halved

Needs more images. maybe something of the modern site. Image:Mission San Antonio aka Alamo.jpg

Here is a good map that could help you. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_texas/ i am pretty sure it is free for educational purposes.

I think the "fall of the alamo" image would be a better looking picture in the infobox

Popular culture- mentioned several times throughout seasons 6-7 of star trek deep space nine as a holosuite program. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Alamo

Maybe a Battle of the Alamo in Popular Culture page page could be started. the current section is kind of long. See: Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture

See other battle featured articles as a point of comparison

Best of luck Oldag07 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Battle_of_the_Alamo/archive2&oldid=349864860"