Sinking Creek Raid edit
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to Good Article quality. I believe West Virginia American Civil War history has been somewhat neglected in Wikipedia, and I hope to post some high quality articles.
Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Review from Matthewrbowker edit
- The last USGS link returns a "302" due to excessive redirects. see here
- "The Confederate Army camp contained about 500 soldiers (also known as rebels)" - That's a little awkward, you don't really need the parenthesis.
- Very good linear style, very interesting article.
- Sources appear complete, however; I don't have access to any of the books so I can't cross-check the information.
- Note: I ran CitationBot on it... diff
Very good and interesting article, I learned a lot about something I never knew before. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Nikkimaria
- Be consistent in whether you use "Sinking Creek Raid" or "Sinking Creek raid"
- Be wary of overlinking - try not to relink the same term multiple times close together
- "Powell's men charged about a 0.5 miles (0.8 km) to the middle of the rebel cavalry camp" - are there words missing here?
- I will clean that up this weekend. Since this is a quote, what do I do about conversions to metric? I'm thinking I can neglect it—that I should have kept the exact quote. What is the Wikipedia standard procedure? TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see that it was not a quote. I will work on this over the weekend: either a quote or better wording—possibly better wording instead of the quote so that I can still use the distance conversion. TwoScars (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- "release a union prisoner." - Union?
- Do we know how the two casualties were killed?
- None of your Sutton short cites link properly because the dates are given differently. Nikkimaria
- Sutton originally published the book in 1892, and anyone can download it from Google Books. I have also purchased a reprint that added some pictures—probably found in the Library of Congress or National Archives. The reprint is dated 2001. I will correct my negligence by fixing the year. Is there a standard? Is it better to use the original 1892 date or the reprint 2001 date? TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{cite book}} has a "orig-year" parameter that will allow you to include both. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sutton originally published the book in 1892, and anyone can download it from Google Books. I have also purchased a reprint that added some pictures—probably found in the Library of Congress or National Archives. The reprint is dated 2001. I will correct my negligence by fixing the year. Is there a standard? Is it better to use the original 1892 date or the reprint 2001 date? TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk) 17:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments. Just some copyediting comments. - Dank (push to talk)
- "located southeast of Charleston, about 12 miles (19.3 km) (southeast) up the Kanawha River": I'd go with "about 12 miles (19.3 km) southeast of Charleston on the Kanawha River"
- "and were therefore routes for supplies. Union troops and supplies were often moved by steamboat up the Kanawha River to Charleston and Camp Piatt.": I'd delete "were therefore routes for supplies."
- "Charleston also had strategic value, as a salt works was located near by": nearby. Also, "as" can cause a garden path (if read as "strategic value as a salt works").
- "recently–promoted":
hyphen,space, not dash. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)