Talk:Shenandoah 1862/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• The lead - "It also challenges the traditional interpretation of inept Union leadership and an oustanding performance"

• I think that you meant "oustanding" to be "outstanding".

• Good catch. Fixed.

• The Content section - "The book is sourced to both primary and secondary sources."

• While I do feel that there is enough information about the primary sources, I wonder if there is any information on the secondary sources that were used.

• Not really. None of the reviews I can access (all of the ones cited in the article) give really any details as to what these sources constitute.

• The Content section - "but instead is due to mishandling by the administration of President of the United States Abraham Lincoln."

• Are there any examples of the administration's mishandling?

• Added some brief stuff.

• The Content section - "two previous works had approached the topic from the Confederate perspective"

• At least a one sentence mention about what those works were would be great.

• Unfortunately, the source does not give any further details than that. I'm not even sure what two books the reviewer is referring to.

• Image -

• "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)" and "Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2)" should be filled out.

• Added.

I enjoyed reading the article and reviewing it. I apologize in advance if I do something wrong with my formatting due to me not reviewing a GA in a while. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

SL93 - Thanks for a thorough review. I don't see anything wrong with the formatting. I've replied above, although there's two points where the sources available to me are just too vague or silent for me to be able to give further details. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm You're welcome. I don't think the GA review should fail for those two points if they are not in the sources. I am accepting this (and will keep this on my watchlist just to see if anyone decides to expand it more - I'm curious).

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: SL93 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)