| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten it and I would like to develop it further and improve the prose and style, as an inexperienced editor I am struggling to do so and would appreciate feedback.
Thanks, SeanPadraig (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is developing well, given the paucity of solid evidence. An obvious improvement would be a look at sourcing. In-line citation is going well but when you look at it, it is drawing from very few sources. It is also heavy on the use of the Auchinleck Chronicle, which would count as a primary source and therefore, not ideal in wiki's eyes. I think this small number of sources is particularly highlighted because the article has an extensive "Further Reading" section, which does not seem to have been used in creating the article. I'm no subject expert but from I can see, there are some solid works in that list that might be used to diversify the source base. Monstrelet (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @SeanPadraig, I will add more comments soon. For now, consider incorporating Monstrelet's advice, and remove the usage of primary sources. From what I've seen, WP prefers sources from after 1950 more, so 1800s sources are obviously no-goes. Academic sources are prioritised and government sources should only be used if the former are rare or unavailable. Thus you should incorporate the sources listed in the Further Reading section, as Monstrelet has said. Also, I would recommend linking, in the infobox, to the pages for the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland and those of the commanders we have pages for (for example, Hugh Douglas, Earl of Ormonde). After that, I would advice using the coordinates we have listed to add a map in the infobox. More to come once you've done these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)