Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Stacy

William Stacy
My objective in requesting a Peer review is to obtain constructive criticism, and to generally improve the article via independent critique from “another set of eyes”. This was my first article. I’ve worked on it for several months, and received useful critique during a recent GA review. I’m hoping to receive more good criticism from a Peer review, and would greatly appreciate your time, effort, and comments.

William Stacy was an officer of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and was subsequently a pioneer to the Ohio County and the Northwest Territory. I have attempted to reference most or all books containing descriptions of Stacy. In that respect, I’ve tried to be as complete as the historical record allows. (Unfortunately, there is no available portrait, drawing, or likeness of Stacy.)

I’m hoping that a reviewer would bring a new perspective to any issues related to the article, including suggested edits, grammar, balance or point of view, and completeness. Thank you for your help. ColWilliam 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you to APR for this review. Working on comments. ColWilliam 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit
Welcome to wikipedia! I'm glad that the GA process was helpful for you. This article looks quite good. I have only a few minor suggestions.


 * The lead should be a standalone summary of the article. For hints on how to write one, see WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER. The second sentence of the current lead is much too long for the average reader.
 * ✅ ColWilliam 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You might think about rearranging the page more chronologically, so that the plaque details and other remembrances are in a section titled "Legacy" or some such thing.
 * ❌ - However, the suggestion is appreciated. I've generally written the article chronologically. However, I wanted to include the plaque and inscription in the section "Opening days of the Revolutionary War". The inscription helps describe the events of that time. Thanks again for the suggestion. Regards, ColWilliam 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is well-written, but some of the language is a little decorative for an encyclopedia. Watch out for phrases such as "colorful events" - they can be interpreted as violating wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. We try to have a pretty objective writing style - what that really means sometimes is boring.
 * ✅ ColWilliam 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your bibliography is impressive, but a bit overwhelming for the average reader, I think. Why don't you list only the best sources on Stacy? Your notes will take care of the rest.
 * ❌ - However, the suggestion is appreciated. I have not implemented, but instead, am considering the idea of an additional section (perhaps a "Bibliography short list") to address your idea about listing only the best sources for an average reader. Also, I wanted to retain the detailed references and bibliography for those readers who are interested in historical details and/or fact-checking. Although many references are provided to the article, most references contain only a sentence, paragraph, or page regarding William Stacy. Thank you again for the suggestion. Regards, ColWilliam 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are optional - decide whether you think this box aides the reader or not.
 * ✅ - Retained infobox, as it was added based on a request from the initial article assessement. Regards, ColWilliam 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you stagger your images on the right- and left-hand sides of the page. It is more aesthetically pleasing (see WP:MOS and WP:IMAGE for suggestions on page layout).
 * ✅ ColWilliam 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Any quotations need to have the inline citation placed directly after them to make absolutely clear what source they are being drawn from.
 * ✅ ColWilliam 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You might think about combining references rather than having multiple citations. That is generally the preferred method. Having five little numbers in a row can be distracting to the reader.
 * ❌ - However, the suggestion is appreciated. Similar to above…I have not implemented, but instead, am considering the idea of an additional section (perhaps a "Bibliography short list") to address your idea about listing only the best sources for an average reader. Also, I wanted to retain the detailed references and bibliography for those readers who are interested in historical details and/or fact-checking. Thank you again. Regards, ColWilliam 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of my comments are nit-picky because you have written a very fine article. Awadewit | talk  11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Awadewit for your efforts and comments. Will work on your suggestions. ColWilliam 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Awadewit | talk  00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. Incorporated some suggestions above and am considering others. Done for now. Regards, ColWilliam 18:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Kevin Myers
I know you've just finished for now, but I just noticed the peer review for this very nicely researched and written article. I have one suggestion regarding the References & Bibliography section. Above it was mentioned that these seem a little overwhelming. This is because you've combined two different approaches to citation, which produces a ton of repeated information. That is, in every single footnote you repeat the entire publication information of the source, and then you repeat that same information again in the "bibliography" section. This is not a standard approach in the publishing world or on Wikipedia.

One approach you can use, which keeps all of the infomation but makes the notes easier to read, is to use the Chicago Manual of Style "short form" for your citations. That is, in the footnote, just use the author's name, the name of the publication, and the page number, and then in the bibliography section give the complete publication details so that readers can check your sources if they need to. See Pontiac's Rebellion for a featured article that uses this style, which is standard in published academic history and the style I recommend for history articles. Your article will look more professional this way. Good work and good luck! —Kevin Myers 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Kevin Myers, for your comments, and for the suggested "short form" approach to citations. This is a great idea, and I will change the format to short form. Thank you. Regards, ColWilliam 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've made a first pass at converting citations to short form. I'll be cycling through the article and references several more times to improve, catch mistakes, and perhaps combine references. The short form looks much better. Thanks again for the suggestion. Regards, ColWilliam 23:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)