Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Morgan's Raid

Morgan's Raid
Morgan's Raid is a particular favorite topic of mine. The raiders passed through the county where I grew up in SE Ohio, as well as near my ancestors' farm site. I would like suggestions for further improvements. Scott Mingus 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Very well-written article. Some suggestions for further improvement: Overall, though, the historical material looks very nice. Good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Add Infobox Military Conflict.
 * More footnotes are always a good thing; they should be fairly easy to insert here, given that you're working from traditional print sources.
 * The lead section could be fleshed out with a few more sentences; as it is, having three separate paragraphs there is overkill for the amount of material present.
 * Is there any more information available on how the raid was treated in the media? There are tantalizing hints about it being "highly publicized" dropped in the lead, but the article doesn't really go into much more detail.


 * Thanks for the suggestions! I have added the military conflcit template box, as well as some more text in the introduction. I added a nice quote from Harper's Weekly that nicely summarizes the uncertainty over Morgan's whereabouts, the consternation of the civilian population, and the swift military response. I'll add footnotes over the next few days. Anything else to bring this up to a "good" rating? Scott Mingus 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "good" rating requires going through WP:GA (and may be getting retired soon for that reason), but I see no reason why this couldn't get an "A" rating once some more footnotes appear. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen
Very good indeed. My comments are really rather trivial. Run a spellcheck. Use the Template:Quotation template for the lengthy quotes; for the shorter ones, put quote marks around them and WP:MOS says not to use italics. Your battle box has a final element that doesn't seem to match usage in others I've seen. Hal Jespersen 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing those are meant to be "footnotes" for the box but the numbers aren't there? Kirill Lokshin 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt
Indeed, a nice article, definitely on a good way towards FA. A few points though:  // Halibutt 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) More references, especially in-line refs. The number of books seems to be fine, but pointing to specific chapters might be a decent idea.
 * 2) Don't be afraid to repeat the same source again and again, there's nothing wrong with placing "Duke, op.cit., pp.20-25" here and there.
 * 3) Also, I'm pretty sure the topic is covered in some on-line sources as well. What about GoogleBooks?
 * 4) Also, if you're quoting some newspaper article - why not use a reference with Cite journal?
 * 5) Casualties in the battle box need to be explained. Did Morgan loose 2000 men killed? Or were they all taken captive?