Talk:Battle of Marion/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Background section, you say "The force opposing Stoneman was the forces". Please reword this so you don't use the word "force" twice within the same sentence.
   • Please either always use convert templates or never use them. For example, you use a convert template in the third paragraph of the Background section, but not in the fifth paragraph.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • For Ref #3 (Heritage Preservation Services:Battle Summary), I'm not sure which long ref this is pointing towards. It's either the first or the second listing in the References section, but I can't figure out which one. Also, whichever one it is, the other one doesn't have a corresponding short ref (as far as I can find), and so should probably be removed from the references section.
   • I have some concerns about whether the cites cover what they claim to cover. For example for ref 3, both of the possibilities that it could be (see above comment) are short summaries of the battle. Neither of them cover exact casualty and loss stats, force strength, commander approval (first paragraph of the background section), etc. This needs to be fixed. I haven't checked the other references, but as there are 11 references to Ref 3, this is something that I will be watching carefully.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • In the last sentence of the article, you say "Stoneman claimed" to have taken a bunch of prisoners. Is there something that contradicts this? Or was it just not verified by independent sources?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A couple of issues with prose, but the most serious issue is with references. I see that the issue of misrepresented references has been brought up before on the talk page, and it is something that must be taken care of. I am putting this article on hold for now. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I still don't know which reference "Heritage Preservation Services: Battle Summary" is supposed to lead to. Also, whichever one it does (if it's one of the first two in the references section) still doesn't back up what it's supposed to be referencing. There is presently a fact tag in the article, and a hidden comment about the page range of Ref 3 (Official records), which needs to be checked out. I agree with the hidden comment, as page 442 of the Official records does not cover, for example, the strength and losses of the armies, for which it is currently cited. Please make sure that all of your references currently cover all of the information for which they are being cited. Blatantly mis-using sources is a very bad habit to get into... Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nom. Nothing has really been done on the article in the two weeks since my last comment, and I still have concerns about the reliability of the sourcing. Please, please, fix this (it's been pointed out in previous GA reviews and by other editors, as well as me), before you renom for GA or A class. Good luck. Dana boomer (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)