Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War

Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War
Been working on a number of the American Revolutionary War articles recently, but this is the first that I've 'finished' for the moment. While I've expanded it considerably considering its previous state, for such a major campaign there is always going to be more to say, and better ways of saying it! First proper major re-haul I've done on Wikipedia, so feedback would be good. Rockfall 17:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Looks quite nice now. I'm not an expert on the actual topic, so I'll leave commenting on the accuracy and completeness of the coverage to someone who is (perhaps you could invite Kevin Myers to comment?), and limit myself to the more general issues that need to be worked on:

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a number of points in the text that are missing citations; see WP:MILHIST. In addition, the existing citations need to include page numbers; citing an entire book is fairly useless to anyone who actually wants to follow the citation trail.
 * The infobox could be expanded to include the combatants and commanders, at least, and perhaps even the overall strength.
 * Month/day dates need to be linked to allow date preferences to work.
 * The notes section should really use class="references-small". I'm not convinced that the two-column layout is a good idea, on the other hand, given how much text is present.
 * The "Further reading" is at least partially "References"; you need to separate the works actually used as sources for the article from the ones listed merely as additional reading suggestions.
 * A few maps would be quite helpful, I think.
 * Extended quotes should use   formatting.
 * Multiple footnotes in the same place (e.g. #11 and #12) should ideally be combined into a single note.
 * The rump "See also" section should be eliminated; it's not difficult to work that link into the text.
 * The lead section needs to be a brief summary of the article; as it is, most of it talks about something else entirely.
 * Righto - wasn't really sure about the references. The essays I write for my degree of course need page numbers, but I'd seen many wikipedia pages without. Will sort that out when I get a moment. I'll tidy up the end section too. Thanks for the comments! Rockfall 10:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan
In general, this needs a really good copyedit to turn it from a collection of facts into a well-written article. You need to build in explanations of individual actions and their motivations and how they relate to the overall narrative. The basics are all there but it just needs an extensive copyedit to make it a smoother read and to remove the grammatical errors, logical inconsistencies etc as listed above. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is too short and, for someome unfamiliar with the topic, confusing.
 * "The Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War became the central area of operations on land after France entered the war on the side of the United States" why would France entering war mean a switchto the south??
 * "Patriot militia " - patiot seems as POV as rebelw ould in the other direction. Can this be changed to "revolutionary" or similar? It is also an innaccurate term since technically they were rebelling against their country, not fighting for it.
 * "an attack under Sir Henry Clintonwas made on Fort Sullivan at Charleston, South Carolina" Why? I think you need to build this into the overall narrative of the war, at the moment it reads like an isolated incident.
 * "Also present at the battle was Charles Cornwallis and Horatio Nelson.[2]" was ->were. I'm not sure how this is relevant unless these people played some important role. Otherwise this reads almost like a "trivia" sentence.
 * "1959 The British operated under the expectation" What's with the 1959?
 * "While in South Carolina, Cornwallis wrote in a letter to Clinton that "Our assurances of attachment from our poor distressed friends in North Carolina are as strong as ever."" - This isn't a sentence, if you start with while, there should be a second half to the sentence.
 * "For the most part, it was an incorrect one" An incorrect what?
 * "Consequently, organized American military activity in the South collapsed" - but the previous statement was "When the Loyalist militia surrendered at the end of the Battle of King's Mountain" - so a loyalist defeat could hardly have a collapse of organised revolutionary activity as a consequence. THis is muddled.
 * Too many generals are mentioned and the overal narrative is lost in a heapload of listed names.
 * "The sole remaining British army of any size remaining in American " American -> America
 * Cites - I would add lots more cites
 * Pictures - I don't think pictures of the generals are too important, especially since they only seem to be british generals. I would far rather see a map showing battles in the campaign, territory held, routes of march etc, what the generals (2 out of the dozens mentioned) look like isn't so important


 * Thanks for the review - I think you're right on the fact that there are so many names. Can you think of any way to get around this without losing content? I'll admit my copyediting skills aren't that fantastic - I'm still getting used to the wiki editing box, but I'll work on it. Rockfall 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too worried about losing content, I would just restructure it slightly so there were wikilinks to as many sub-topics as possible, which will inevitably have details like commanders names etc, and then remove these extra details from the article, leaving only the names of main commanders. The topic is fairly large in scope (entire military theatre over near a decade) so you want to give a good overview of the sweep of events, and how they intertwine together. I would worry more about making the article a cohesive whole that flows well and make sure everything is in context, fully explained, and flows into the sections before and after it. Its not necessary to mention every detail at this level, you would leave that to specific sub articles on specific battles, sieges etc etc. You're not alone in feeling that the wiki editing box's small size causes problems with writing good copy, many others find it similarly restrictive, myself included! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)