Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marion/archive3

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 (3)

Previous nomination

Fixed all of the previous concerns. If you have any comments, I will fix them. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. I would suggest, though, that you add to the background section a brief description of what Stoneman did after completing the raid. Did he return to Tennessee? If so, when? Did he continue the raid into another area or go directly into the Battle of Saltville? By the way, the link to the Battle of Saltville 2 in the campaignbox goes to a disambiguation page. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed disambig. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks quite good, but before I'll put my support, it would need some minor improvements. References are needed on Strength and Casualties in the infobox, while the lead should be expanded a bit. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Promising piece but too many small issues, I'm afraid.

References:

These need considerable cleaning up. For books, typical order is author (year of publication), title, place of publication, publisher, ISBN (where appropriate).
Citations: These could be tidied up along the lines of the Battle of Appomattox Station model. Use of the multi-cite template, in particular, reduces clutter.
Separate Notes & References sections is neatest (IMO) though not compulsory.
Minor point: the <ref> tags needs to go immediately after punctuation (ie no space).

Reliability of sources.

Is the spartacus schoolnet a reliable source for an A-Class encyclopedia article?
Can we have more and better dead-tree sources (these seem limited)?

Copy issues:

Military titles are used for first mention only; thereafter surname only: thus "General Basil Duke", then "Duke" (not "General Duke".)
"The Union army that was positioned at the covered bridge" and in the next paragraph "The Union soldiers that had taken positions at the covered bridge" - a bit clunky. Can shorthand be used for this?
Expand the lead a little?
Is use of "colored" for troops in the narrative text okay? I know it's in the regimental titles but I'm wondering if it's appropriate elsewhere.

Other

A map of the battle would be good but is probably wishful thinking.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you'd like extra time to fix these, just ask for an extension. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:20, 8 May 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.