Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Advice on preparing a history article for Featured Article

Some tips that I've discovered in choosing, editing, and submitting history articles for Featured Article (FA):


 * Choose a non-controversial subject. If the article you want to work on is under the ``protection`` of one or more POV-pushers, you're just going to immensely frustrate yourself trying to work through the wall of interference that those other editors will throw up as you try to improve the article.  The best is if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time (check the history).  Of course, choose a subject that's interesting to you.  If you choose to improve an article that has several sub-articles (like a military campaign that includes several sub-battles), take the sub-articles to FA first.  Then, the "parent" article will have basically written itself from the completed sub-articles.  (Oct 08 update) Wikipedia has improved a lot in this aspect, there are now much fewer history articles owned by POV pushers.  If you find one, bring it to someone's attention and it will be (eventually) taken care of.
 * Acquire your references first. Having the right references is the most important part of writing the article.  Search the Web or the local library and find all the references you'll need for the article.  I suggest at least three.  Books are better than websites because they're often more credible and websites come and go.  Try your local public or university library or you can buy used books online very cheaply.  Add your list of references to the article first, so that other, helpful editors can also jump-in to assist if they want to and have access to the references you list (this has happened to me).  The more references you can acquire and use, the better.  What one historian misses may be recorded by another historian.  Try to get references that give the point of view from all sides of the event.
 * You may need to order an out-of-print book from a bookseller in another country. Once, the cheapest price that I could find for an out-of-print book that I needed for an article from online US used booksellers was US$165.  I then found the book at an online Australian used bookseller for US$20 so, even with the increased postage it was much, much cheaper.


 * Article outline. I would suggest the following basic outline for a history article:  Background, Incident (or Battle, Action, Event, etc), Aftermath and/or Significance, and Notes and References.  The "Incident" section can be further broken up into "Prelude" and other subsections by time or event if necessary to keep the section from being too long.  Just like with a speech, the article should have a "graceful ending."  The last sentence should bring the article to a definite close.  One way to do this is to use a pithy quote from an historian or reporter about the event that was covered in the article.
 * Cite (inline) liberally. You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little.  Cite every assertion and have at least one citation at the end of every paragraph so that it doesn't look like you have any "dangling," uncited text.  Also, spread your citations out among your references so that it doesn't look like you're using one or two sources for everything.  Lately I've started combining all the citations for a paragraph in a single footnote at the end of the paragrah and that seems to be working out fine so far.
 * Illlustrate. Find pictures and maps with ok copyright status (or create supporting maps or images yourself), upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and add a Commons link from the article to the Commons gallery where you list all of the images related to the article.  This way editors in the other Wikipedia language editions can access the images you upload and use them for the articles on the same subject that they're writing in their language (yes, I've seen this done with images I uploaded to the Commons).  Adjust the flow of the text of the article to support images you add that emphasize particular events.  In this way you can make your article more of a multi-media presentation instead of just a written report on something.  I've sometimes made the decision on whether to create a new article on a subject based solely on if there were enough images available to adequately illustrate the article.  Take some time and do several searches on the Internet to find images.  You'll be surprised at the unlikely places you'll find relevant images for the article you're editing.


 * Something that I've discovered recently is how images should be placed in an article. If the person or object in the picture is facing or pointing towards the right, then the picture should be on the left side of the text.  If facing or pointing to the left, then it should be on the right side.  Doing this somehow makes the article look more complete and have greater impact.
 * Is the creation of your own illustration for an article engaging in original research? It can be if you don't do it correctly.  If you create your own illustration, be it a map, drawing, or other type of graphic, you should add a footnote to the image caption sourcing where you obtained your information from to create the illustration.  Of course, the same information should also be on the image file page.
 * Something to consider in illustrating a battle article is the placement of images depicting the two sides. If you can place all the images on the right side throughout the article depicting the adversary listed on the right side of the info box, and vice versa for the other adversary, you've created an interesting and perhaps, attractive tableau of the two forces seeming to square off against each across the article page.  The problem with this is the principle described above of needing to place the images as facing or moving "into" the article.  Of the two considerations, I propose that the latter is more important.


 * Wikilink. Don't over-wikilink, but wikilink to topics that are directly related to the article.  Don't be afraid to redlink topic titles that should have articles created for them.  After redlinking notable topics, go through and start stubs on all of them.  Although this is time-consuming, it helps to build the encyclopedia.  How to start a new article with a minimum of problems:
 * Conduct a search on Google and Wikipedia's internal search engine to ensure that the article doesn't already exist under a different title. Also, search Wikimedia Commons for related images.
 * Using the Wikipedia search results list, go to all the articles listed and redlink all mentions of the topic that you're about to start a topic on. This will ensure that all the links to your article will exist at the moment of its creation.
 * Either open a new article window under the topic title, or else create it on a page in your userspace. Don't make the first save to the new article in main space until the initial draft is complete, i.e. including a lede, infobox, images, if any, categories, and most importantly, references.  Otherwise, before you can blink an eye a Wikipedia sanitation custodian will nominate the article for deletion or template it with some other trouble banner before you've completed the initial draft of the article.  If this happens, you should be able to fix it, but it's a pain to have to deal with.  So, have the article fully ready as a viable stub before hitting the save button for the first time.
 * Create redirects for the common, alternate search names for the article you've just created.


 * Step back periodically. If you're stumped or your writing isn't flowing well, take a break and do something else with your free time for a day or so. An idea for the article may occur to you when your mind is on something else.  Happens to me all the time.  An encyclopedic-style article can be written in a concise and neutral manner, yet still produce some dramatic tension for the reader if written well.
 * Write neutrally. I know that this is one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia, but, it still bears repeating.  If someone can read your article and not be able to tell which side you're taking on the battle, event, or issue, then you've succeeded in writing it neutrally.
 * Don't forget the "human element" After all is said and done, the story you are telling, if about an historic event, involves your fellow human beings involved in a very dramatic situation.  Try to have at least one item in the article that expresses this human element, whether it be a quote from a participant, an image clearly showing a person, not just a landscape or an object, or the mention of one individual's or group's thoughts, exploits, or experience.  Since this is an encyclopedic entry, the human element example needs to be brief and not too POV (for example, overly extolling the "heroism" aspect of any individual's participation in the event) for one particular side or it will be counterproductive.  An easy way to do this is to include images of the respective commanders or leaders of the forces involved (if the article is about a battle).  The best seems to be a brief quote from a participant or even better if you have quotes from participants on both sides of the event.
 * Submit for peer review, then Good Article or A-Class review. The motivated and helpful peer, Good Article, and A-class review editors, either with the military history project, WP:BIO, or the general peer review and Good Article forums, will point-out any flaws or issues with your article that you might have missed.  Resolve the issues that they highlight in their review.
 * Don't fight with the FA reviewers. After you nominate your article as an FA candidate, assume that the comments or criticism that comes from the FA candidate reviewers are being made in good faith.  Respond constructively and try to correct whatever they point-out, even if you don't agree with it.  If they ask or object to something that you feel isn't reasonable, still try to work with them to resolve their concern in a constructive and calm manner.
 * Further advice... Yannismarou has also written some good advice on the process as well as a tutorial.  Some further insightful commentary on the FAC process is contained here, here, and here.  Finally, Tony has written an extensive writing guide here. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)