Wikipedia:Peer review/Sinking Creek Raid/archive1

Sinking Creek Raid

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to Good Article quality. I believe West Virginia American Civil War history has been somewhat neglected in Wikipedia, and I hope to post some high quality articles.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Matthewrbowker

Thanks for reading the article. Another one may be ready in a few months. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last USGS link returns a "302" due to excessive redirects. see here

It worked fine just now, but it has been awfully slow in other articles. I don't know if there is anything that can be done there. TwoScars (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Confederate Army camp contained about 500 soldiers (also known as rebels)" - That's a little awkward, you don't really need the parenthesis.

Will work on this over the weekend. I agree that it is awkward. The purpose is to somehow make sure non-USA readers are not confused. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded that. You and I know who the rebels were, but I'm not sure if non-North Americans would. If you have any suggestions for improving this, please let me know. TwoScars (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good linear style, very interesting article.
Sources appear complete, however; I don't have access to any of the books so I can't cross-check the information.
Note: I ran CitationBot on it... diff

Very good and interesting article, I learned a lot about something I never knew before. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Thanks for reviewing the article, and past articles too! TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you use "Sinking Creek Raid" or "Sinking Creek raid"

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be wary of overlinking - try not to relink the same term multiple times close together

Unlinked Charleston and Kanawha River in the Background section. Any other place in particular with this problem? A few of the terms in the opening are also linked in the main part of the report. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Powell's men charged about a 0.5 miles (0.8 km) to the middle of the rebel cavalry camp" - are there words missing here?

I will clean that up this weekend. Since this is a quote, what do I do about conversions to metric? I'm thinking I can neglect it—that I should have kept the exact quote. What is the Wikipedia standard procedure? TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was not a quote. I will work on this over the weekend: either a quote or better wording—possibly better wording instead of the quote so that I can still use the distance conversion. TwoScars (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to "Powell and his men charged down the valley, a distance of about 0.5 miles (0.8 km), to the middle of the rebel cavalry camp." TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"release a union prisoner." - Union?

Reworded: "rescue a Union sympathizer held by the Confederates". I will look at this again on the weekend. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know how the two casualties were killed?

No information on that, except that no shots were fired. Powell says several rebels were hit on the head with the butts of their revolvers, but does not mention any KIA—only Paxton's official report lists KIA. TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of your Sutton short cites link properly because the dates are given differently. Nikkimaria

Sutton originally published the book in 1892, and anyone can download it from Google Books. I have also purchased a reprint that added some pictures—probably found in the Library of Congress or National Archives. The reprint is dated 2001. I will correct my negligence by fixing the year. Is there a standard? Is it better to use the original 1892 date or the reprint 2001 date? TwoScars (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite book}} has a "orig-year" parameter that will allow you to include both. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it worked. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 17:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Just some copyediting comments. - Dank (push to talk)

"located southeast of Charleston, about 12 miles (19.3 km) (southeast) up the Kanawha River": I'd go with "about 12 miles (19.3 km) southeast of Charleston on the Kanawha River"
"and were therefore routes for supplies. Union troops and supplies were often moved by steamboat up the Kanawha River to Charleston and Camp Piatt.": I'd delete "were therefore routes for supplies."
"Charleston also had strategic value, as a salt works was located near by": nearby. Also, "as" can cause a garden path (if read as "strategic value as a salt works").
"recently–promoted": ~~hyphen,~~ space, not dash. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]