Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Moorefield/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to upgrade it to a Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - thanks for looking at this. TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Historians group this battle with Early's Washington Raid and operations against the B&O Railroad" - are there specific historians that do this, or is it only the NPS?
  • "another major victory for Averell, who typically did well when operating on his own instead of in concert with other generals" - the source, and the lead, both suggest that the issue was not collaboration but rather subordination
    • Changed sentence to "Moorefield was another major victory for Averell, who typically did well when operating on his own, but had difficulty with direct supervision where he was expected to work in concert with others." TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is amiss with the campaignbox formatting - the text is extending right past the confines of the box
  • In the "McCausland's raid north" image, the caption should explain the significance of the different colours - and ideally the image would be scaled up so that the circled text can be read
  • "Moorefield, Romney, and the South Branch of the Potomac River" - again, what is the significance of the solid vs dotted lines?
    • Changed caption to say "After an unsuccessful attack at Cumberland and nearby New Creek, McCausland moved to where the South Branch of Potomac River crosses the main north–south road between Romney and Moorefield. This is where of Battle of Moorefield took place." Another alternative would be to eliminate the dotted circle around Cumberland, and have a caption saying "Site of the Battle of Moorefield". What do you think? TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could do, or you could just add parentheticals to the caption, eg (dotted circle)
  • Footnotes 14 and 32 appear to have the wrong dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]