Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/First Battle of Charleston Harbor

First Battle of Charleston Harbor edit

I have done just about everything I set out to do with this article, and now think that it meets B-class criteria. Another set of eyes may detect shortcomings, so suggestions for improvements are welcome. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to properly capitalize all your sources' titles. Will reply later with more substantial comments. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This style (i.e. sentence capitalization) is permitted by the manual of style. I use it because I copy and paste most of my bibliography from the Library of Congress online catalog, and I deem it too much trouble to revise it. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai edit

A quick glance over and it looks mostly like it just needs tightening up, ie removing excess words. The lead should be reduced to just explaining the main points. FE, the whole fourth paragraph could largely be reduced to a 2 sentances and merged with the last paragraph. Just tell people that the war didn't go as planned and on either side resulting in defeat for the union forces. Details should be left for the inidivisual sections.

red links should be avoided and the number the article has may be a bit too much.

Finally there are a few words that may should be removed. FE: "Keokuk sank during the night, fortunately with no loss of life,[...]" or "Later, a so-called "boom" was laid between Forts Sumter and Moultrie." a few others, somewhat, although, however, only, etc.

Other words to you can look to remove are ones like thus, in addition, etc. Finally do not start sentances with even, because and of course although (see above).陣内 _Jinnai 04:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention.

1. I have revised the lead to accommodate your suggestions.

2. I have cut out the words you want me to get rid of, with one exception: the "Even Keokuk" in the last paragraph is left in to emphasize the fact that it would be unexpected.

3. The red links dismay me also, but I think the cure is to create the articles they would link to. I am particularly surprised that articles (at least stubs) for Battery Gregg and Fort Johnson do not already exist. As for the naval officers, I think that all three that are now red-linked are notable enough to be worth their own articles.

PKKloeppel (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woody edit

This is a good article, a few comments from me:

First off, don't worry about the red links, certainly don't remove them. It indicates articles that still need to be made.
Could you split up the battle section, perhaps adding in sub-sections. At the moment it is a very large block of text.
The section headers in the background section aren't very intuitive for the non-American. Could we change it to Union and Confederate or something along those lines?
Could we get an image made up of the battle, a diagram?
Make sure you use consistent date formats, I note you use 5 April (rather than April 5) in the battle section. Some people at FAC can get very worked up about date formats.
"Four monitors led the way; first was USS Weehawken, Captain John Rodgers." This doesn't flow very well, maybe USS Weehawken under the command of Captain John Rodgers. or something to that effect.
Do we need to list all the commanders in the text? Perhaps a separate order of battle section and put this in list form. That is a stylistic preference though, something to think about. How do other battle articles deal with it?
Can you take Passaic class monitor out of see also and link it in the text somewhere; perhaps it would be more appropriate to link it instead of the lead ship in this sentence: "The Passaic class gunboats were designed"?

So, a few suggestions for you to ponder. It is good work so far. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me apologize for not responding earlier. I was away from Wikipedia for a few days, and I just plain forgot to check in.
I think that I have responded to all of your suggestions except one. See what you think of it now.
The suggestion that I have not done anything about is to show a map. I have a map that I would like to use, but it is too detailed for presentation on a computer screen, so I will have to modify it. With my artistic skills (not), this will probably not be completed anytime soon. Bear with me (and if anyone else has a good map and wishes to jump in, he/she will earn my gratitude).
I have left the names of the several captains in the text because it showed the importance ascribed to the battle by the Navy Department. The ten men who were selected were regarded as the cream of the crop, as shown by the later elevation of seven of them to flag rank. This was a density of future gold braid that has seldom been equaled in any navy. (I wish I could put this expression of my Point of View into the article, but you -- and all the rest of Wikipedia -- would frown on that.) PKKloeppel (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the length between my replies; I distinctly remember responding to you, though I think my internet connection vanished. On to the task at hand, don't worry about the map, someone will create one at some point. It was simply something that could be done in the future. In terms of the captains, that is fine, I understand your reasoning now, it just seems a bit awkward in the text.

Another point, some text is now squashed between the images in the confederacy section which is against MOS. Woody (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]