102:
given to me. I'm not sure what
Confederate victory the sentence is mentioning so it got me confused. Maybe the second sentence could go something along the lines of: "The Ringgold Cap is a mountain pass used by the Confederate army as a way of safe passage and retreat for the Army of Tennessee...." This way, old information can go at the beginning of a sentence and new information can come at the end.
318:
The images in the article are GREAT! I love the image used for the battle section because it really helps the reader visualize it. My suggestion is for you to add a map or image of the
Ringgold Gap Mountain Pass in the background section perhaps. I ended up having to google it just to see it on the
101:
The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence but could use some work in describing the article's major sections. The lead could include a sentence introducing who fought (Union vs. Confederate) and say who won. I had to read the second sentence a couple times to understand the information
231:
I think it's great that just about every sentence in the article is backed by a source. The sources that I did click with links worked. I do think that the consistency of the references and citations can be worked on. I don't know if it's a wikipedia rule but having the references and citations
139:
It looks like you really expanded on the
Background of the battle which was much needed. I think your additions about the sequence of events leading up to the battle and during battle was great. Although I do feel that there's a lot of information to keep up with. It makes me think of what our
402:
I think the article is definitely more complete with the additions you've included. The Battle section is definitely improved and your strongest part of the article. I think the lead could use some tweaking and an additional image of the
Ringgold Gap could be a good addition.
269:
My grammar and spelling is not the best so I don't think I'll have a good evaluation here for it. I did find one sentence I think has one too many commas (but I could just be overthinking it).
189:
The content added is neutral and factual with supporting sources. As I read the article, there wasn't any bias or attempt of persuading the reader to favor one position over the other.
350:
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
232:
formatted the same from the beginning of the article to the end could help with organization of the sources. It looks to be alphabetized except for one source.
272:
Article
Sentence: "To the south, the 16th Alabama, under the leadership of Major Frederick Ashford, was stationed in the woods of Taylor's Ridge."
275:
Suggested Edit: "Under the leadership of Major
Frederick Ashford, the 16th Alabama was stationed to the south in the woods of Taylor's Ridge."
21:
141:
259:
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
345:
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
340:
requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
51:
76:
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
382:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
337:
179:
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
144:: "When you copyedit and revise, try not to add. As we've been learning, more is rarely better."
329:
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
211:
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
319:
map so maybe other readers might want to see it while looking at the wiki article.
45:
17:
249:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
169:
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
206:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
81:
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
365:(This part of the evaluation does not apply to this particular article.)
293:
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
147:
The content added is relevant and the sources you used are up-to-date.
71:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
86:
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
355:
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
174:
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
129:
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
254:
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
303:
Do all images adhere to
Knowledge's copyright regulations?
308:
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
91:Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
35:NMAC 5108 Spring 2020 Peer Review Assignment
8:
387:What are the strengths of the content added?
119:Is the content added relevant to the topic?
392:How can the content added be improved?
7:
336:Does the article meet Knowledge's
287:If your peer added images or media
28:
227:Sources and references evaluation
221:Check a few links. Do they work?
124:Is the content added up-to-date?
50:Link to draft you're reviewing:
44:Whose work are you reviewing?
1:
164:Is the content added neutral?
314:Images and media evaluation
185:Tone and balance evaluation
142:Faith of Graffiti Talk Page
417:
298:Are images well-captioned?
216:Are the sources current?
265:Organization evaluation
361:New Article Evaluation
193:Sources and References
140:Professor said in our
52:Battle of Ringgold Gap
22:Battle of Ringgold Gap
323:For New Articles Only
369:Overall impressions
398:Overall evaluation
375:Guiding questions:
285:Guiding questions:
242:Guiding questions:
199:Guiding questions:
157:Guiding questions:
135:Content evaluation
112:Guiding questions:
64:Guiding questions:
393:
388:
383:
376:
356:
351:
346:
341:
330:
309:
304:
299:
294:
288:
260:
255:
250:
243:
222:
217:
212:
207:
200:
180:
175:
170:
165:
158:
130:
125:
120:
113:
92:
87:
82:
77:
72:
65:
408:
391:
386:
381:
374:
354:
349:
344:
335:
328:
307:
302:
297:
292:
283:
279:Images and Media
258:
253:
248:
241:
220:
215:
210:
205:
198:
178:
173:
168:
163:
156:
151:Tone and Balance
128:
123:
118:
111:
90:
85:
80:
75:
70:
63:
416:
415:
411:
410:
409:
407:
406:
405:
400:
371:
363:
325:
316:
281:
267:
238:
229:
195:
187:
153:
137:
108:
99:
97:Lead evaluation
60:
41:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
414:
412:
399:
396:
395:
394:
389:
384:
370:
367:
362:
359:
358:
357:
352:
347:
342:
324:
321:
315:
312:
311:
310:
305:
300:
295:
280:
277:
266:
263:
262:
261:
256:
251:
237:
234:
228:
225:
224:
223:
218:
213:
208:
194:
191:
186:
183:
182:
181:
176:
171:
166:
152:
149:
136:
133:
132:
131:
126:
121:
107:
104:
98:
95:
94:
93:
88:
83:
78:
73:
59:
56:
55:
54:
48:
40:
37:
32:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
413:
404:
397:
390:
385:
380:
379:
378:
377:
368:
366:
360:
353:
348:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
322:
320:
313:
306:
301:
296:
291:
290:
289:
286:
278:
276:
273:
270:
264:
257:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
235:
233:
226:
219:
214:
209:
204:
203:
202:
201:
192:
190:
184:
177:
172:
167:
162:
161:
160:
159:
150:
148:
145:
143:
134:
127:
122:
117:
116:
115:
114:
105:
103:
96:
89:
84:
79:
74:
69:
68:
67:
66:
57:
53:
49:
47:
43:
42:
38:
36:
30:
23:
19:
401:
373:
372:
364:
327:
326:
317:
284:
282:
274:
271:
268:
240:
239:
236:Organization
230:
197:
196:
188:
155:
154:
146:
138:
110:
109:
100:
62:
61:
46:User:Ereed23
39:General info
34:
18:User:Ereed23
31:Peer Review
338:Notability
20: |
106:Content
16:<
58:Lead
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.