User:Ereed23/Battle of Ringgold Gap/JenniferMGA Peer Review

Peer Review

NMAC 5108 Spring 2020 Peer Review Assignment

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? User:Ereed23
Link to draft you're reviewing: Battle of Ringgold Gap

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence but could use some work in describing the article's major sections. The lead could include a sentence introducing who fought (Union vs. Confederate) and say who won. I had to read the second sentence a couple times to understand the information given to me. I'm not sure what Confederate victory the sentence is mentioning so it got me confused. Maybe the second sentence could go something along the lines of: "The Ringgold Cap is a mountain pass used by the Confederate army as a way of safe passage and retreat for the Army of Tennessee...." This way, old information can go at the beginning of a sentence and new information can come at the end.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

It looks like you really expanded on the Background of the battle which was much needed. I think your additions about the sequence of events leading up to the battle and during battle was great. Although I do feel that there's a lot of information to keep up with. It makes me think of what our Professor said in our Faith of Graffiti Talk Page: "When you copyedit and revise, try not to add. As we've been learning, more is rarely better."

The content added is relevant and the sources you used are up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral and factual with supporting sources. As I read the article, there wasn't any bias or attempt of persuading the reader to favor one position over the other.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

I think it's great that just about every sentence in the article is backed by a source. The sources that I did click with links worked. I do think that the consistency of the references and citations can be worked on. I don't know if it's a wikipedia rule but having the references and citations formatted the same from the beginning of the article to the end could help with organization of the sources. It looks to be alphabetized except for one source.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

My grammar and spelling is not the best so I don't think I'll have a good evaluation here for it. I did find one sentence I think has one too many commas (but I could just be overthinking it).

Article Sentence: "To the south, the 16th Alabama, under the leadership of Major Frederick Ashford, was stationed in the woods of Taylor's Ridge."

Suggested Edit: "Under the leadership of Major Frederick Ashford, the 16th Alabama was stationed to the south in the woods of Taylor's Ridge."

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

The images in the article are GREAT! I love the image used for the battle section because it really helps the reader visualize it. My suggestion is for you to add a map or image of the Ringgold Gap Mountain Pass in the background section perhaps. I ended up having to google it just to see it on the map so maybe other readers might want to see it while looking at the wiki article.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

(This part of the evaluation does not apply to this particular article.)

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

I think the article is definitely more complete with the additions you've included. The Battle section is definitely improved and your strongest part of the article. I think the lead could use some tweaking and an additional image of the Ringgold Gap could be a good addition.