Talk:Battle of Glasgow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
- Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Any additional feedback would be appreciated, although I do feel that I have been given good guidance regarding my writing style in Wikipedia in general.
- If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
Writing good articles is the only significant writing that I do outside of my commitments to school.
- Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
My writing style is influenced by the MoS regarding military history. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Failed
I'm sorry, but you failed the Good Article review.
- There is a huge space of emptiness that needs to be fixed due to a picture problem.
- There are at least 5-7 citations that are labled by the number [2], and many others are out of order.
- It is far too small of an article to be rated as good yet.
If you have any further questions, ask me on my talk page. Try again after you fix the major issues above. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a second. What huge empty space? You mean the one created by the table of contents? Because in my browser at least, that's the only empty space, and tables of contents are supposed to create those.
- Using one source repeatedly isn't an issue either, if the source is considered a reliable one and it's not asserting anything ridiculous. Source 2 appears to be a blog however, so it would be good to hear what makes it a reliable source from the page authors.
- And lack of length isn't an issue under the GA criteria either, provided the article is sufficiently broad in its coverage of the subject. (Indeed, GAs were originally created to handle articles that were high quality but there was too little to say about their subjects to ever reach FA.)
- So before you outright fail this, I'd like to hear from the nominator. --erachima talk 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the image at right is the empty space.
Second of all, I do not think that the article covered the topic sufficiently. However, it is a well written article, and if you add some more, I'd willingly pass it in a heartbeat. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 14:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has assessed this article. I am embarrassed to say, but I missed the fact that the aforementioned source of information I used is a blog entry. I will get rid of the information associated with that source, and I will try to replace the information that will be deleted with information from a reliable source.
">ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ, I am afraid I cannot see the empty space you have pointed out on the article itself, and thus I am unable to treat the problem. Would you be willing to solve that particular problem?
In regards to me referencing a source lots of times, all the guidelines and regulations I have seen regarding sources state that there is nothing wrong with referencing a source lots of times, so long as the source is reliable. If I am wrong in my thinking, please do show me somewhere which states I cannot reference a source lots of times.
ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§, you state "and many others are out of order". Please elaborate. As for as I can see, all the other sources can be considered reliable.
As for length of article, I do believe that I have exhausted all reliable sources available to me relating to the battle of Glasgow itself (the information from the unreliable source concerns Price's raid as a whole, and I should be able to find a more reliable source to take information from to replace the unreliable facts). I accept that it is a short article, but will the fact that there is limited information regarding the battle be taken into account? I cannot write anymore, if there is no more information I can expand it with.
There is something I am a little confused about. The quick-fail guide : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article, states that an article can only be failed on the basis of unreliable sources, if the article has a "A complete lack of reliable sources". Only one source is disputed. What is your rationale then for outrightly failing my article, instead of putting it on hold?
In fact, here is the quick-fail criteria for GA nominations:
Before conducting an extensive review, determine whether the article should be "quick failed". Issues that may warrant a "quick fail" of the nomination include:
A complete lack of reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.[2] An obvious non-neutral treatment of a topic - see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.[3] Presence of any correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags. The article has been the subject of recent, unresolved edit wars. The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint.[4] If the article meets any of the quick-fail criteria, leave a message on the article talk page explaining the issue and fail the nomination as described on Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
My article has broken none of the criteria clauses. Therefore, how can you justify the quick-fail of this article, when it should have been put on hold? Only one source is shown to be unreliable. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] more info
This action was not particularly consequential, so there has not been a lot written about it. If you cannot find adequate secondary sources to flesh out the article, you may wish to consult the Official Records. For example, if you go to http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ANU4519-0083 you will find reports on Price's Missouri Expedition. Col Harding's report starts on page 434, for instance, and there are other Union reports nearby. Clark's report starts on page 678. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hal Jespersen, thank you for providing a link to this information. I really appreciate that.
I will work on integrating information from those records, into the article. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting resource is http://books.google.com/books?id=VxQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA117&dq=supreme+court+insurance+boon+harding&ei=hj4bSJnmNIaqtgOJ2OCEAg Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)