This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
5th Massachusetts Militia Regiment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
5th Massachusetts Militia Regiment has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 23, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Will read through and review properly over the weekend.
Hchc2009 (
talk) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
There are some bits where the cited pages don't seem to quite match up with the article text (NB: I'm not saying the article is wrong, just that the cites aren't matching up), e.g.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Response, Thanks very much, Hchc2009, for your review and comments. I've made changes in the places you suggested above. I appreciate your thoroughness in checking citations and pointing out inconsistencies. With regard to the section headers, I've changed as you suggested--clearer that way, I agree. I won't detail each of the changes I made with regard to statements that aren't precisely supported by the citation (every now and then a bit of information creeps in from something I've read elsewhere but can't recall the source). You'll see in the edit history that I've removed the problematic phrases, such as the yellow fever outbreak having a "severe" effect on the unit (it's evident there were casualties but "severe" is not supported, you're right), being in the "heaviest" of the fighting at Henry House Hill (although I think it was, but you're right, the source doesn't exactly say that), etc., etc. I hope these changes address your concerns. Best, Historical Perspective 2 ( talk) 11:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
5th Massachusetts Militia Regiment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
5th Massachusetts Militia Regiment has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 23, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Will read through and review properly over the weekend.
Hchc2009 (
talk) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
There are some bits where the cited pages don't seem to quite match up with the article text (NB: I'm not saying the article is wrong, just that the cites aren't matching up), e.g.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Response, Thanks very much, Hchc2009, for your review and comments. I've made changes in the places you suggested above. I appreciate your thoroughness in checking citations and pointing out inconsistencies. With regard to the section headers, I've changed as you suggested--clearer that way, I agree. I won't detail each of the changes I made with regard to statements that aren't precisely supported by the citation (every now and then a bit of information creeps in from something I've read elsewhere but can't recall the source). You'll see in the edit history that I've removed the problematic phrases, such as the yellow fever outbreak having a "severe" effect on the unit (it's evident there were casualties but "severe" is not supported, you're right), being in the "heaviest" of the fighting at Henry House Hill (although I think it was, but you're right, the source doesn't exactly say that), etc., etc. I hope these changes address your concerns. Best, Historical Perspective 2 ( talk) 11:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)