Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Bentonville

Battle of Bentonville
I'm looking for was to improve this article to at least GA or A-class status. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert
A couple of style/technical points from me:
 * in the Background section, the last sentence of the last paragraph needs a citation: "The Confederate attack commenced on March 19, as Slocum's men marched on the Goldsboro Road, one mile (1.6 km) south of Bentonville";
 * in the Aftermath section, the last sentence of the first paragraph requires a citation: "The Confederate army had failed in its last chance to achieve a decisive victory over the Union army in North Carolina";
 * in the Notes section the page ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH;
 * in the Notes section (Citation # 27) should have publisher and accessdate information added to it;
 * in the References section you have two websites, but unless they were specifically cited, I think they should be in the External links section;
 * you might consider adding alt text to the images;
 * I suggest wikilinking terms like "division" (once in the lead, and once in the body) so that readers can click on them and gain an understanding of what they mean if they don't already know. Good work so far. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

 * Locns in the books should be spelt out, not CA, GA without explanation. Also Chapel Hill needs NC  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

 * Lede sentence requires "fought during" "fought over". "Johnston managed to concentrate in North Carolina" confused list, use semicolons to indicate the breaks between the phrases in the complex list.  Concentration needs to be wikilinked to the military concept of concentration of force.  fn27 needs a full citation.  As will National Park Service battle description.  "Luvaas, Jay. "Johnston's Last Stand — Bentonville.""  mdash used incorrectly?
 * The battle narrative is difficult prose. This is because it is essentially technical writing.  You try to break it up by mentioning, for example, the death of notable individuals, but it is a hard thing to write shining battle prose. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)