Talk:Battle of Mars (3067)

Review

Per request, here is my review of the article as it stood at this time:

Ups: The article is definitely one of the better event articles. The prequel section provides the required context to understand the following material and is written in a similar 'voice' as to the primary content. Great use of wikilinks, showing the breadth of material that supports or relates to the subject (i.e., the battle). Excellent inclusion of references, which definitively leads the reader to the source material.

Downs: The references themselves should not have links inside themselves. Instead, lean on the Bibliography section to allow the reader to review the summary articles about the source materials. Also, and this is a reflection of the article and not your (ClanWolverine101) efforts, the large number of redlinks is distracting. A top-notch article (as defined only be my, at the present ) would have all blue links. One area in which you may improve that is to link to articles where sub-units are covered in their parent unit article (when provided).

All-in-all, and in lieu of an article-grading system, I'd give it a solid B+. Take a look at some of the changes Mbear, Scaletail and myself made. Though extremely minor in comparison to your efforts, they do help to improve upon the article. Good job...seriously. Its clear you put a lot of research and outline effort into it. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My earlier articles used virtually no reference citations, and pretty much just relied on the Bibliography. (Something I've been slowly fixing.) I try to go heavy on the references when dealing with an item where info is drawn from multiple sources. (i.e. the composition of the task force)

Question : What do you mean regarding the "references themselves should not have links inside themselves."? I thought that was standard?

As for the red-links : Most of these are simply units of Wolf's Dragoons. As its been established that every regiment should have its own page, I didn't feel comfortable redirecting them all to the main WD article. I may clean out some of the other ones, simply because they may not be article-worthy.

Thank you for the review. I found earlier comments by others to have been a bit vague. Your comments were helpful. ClanWolverine101 19:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The citations should not link to anything. Let the bibliography do that; that's what it's there for. --Scaletail 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC

As Scaletail said. Reference code can be confusing and adding wikilinks only serve to confuse Editors trying to learn how to add them. The biblio section is ideal in providing the wikilink just one time. BTW, I also appreciated your use of the 'ref name' code. Makes things a lot cleaner and isn't too hard, once it's understood. Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I understand now. Question : What if we have a relevant but minor citation from a publication that isn't worthy of being listed in the biography? ClanWolverine101 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; back local finally.

Please provide me an example? I have a 'stock' answer, but I may be mis-assuming what you mean. Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, go to the Snub-nosed PPC article and read the note I put in about the Star League. In my mind, a single reference in a book with virtually no additional information does not make a work Bibilo worthy. But I defer to your judgment. ClanWolverine101 19:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's just fine. The purpose of a biblio entry is to provide readers the sources of both information included and not included in the article. It provides legitimacy (via verifiability) to the Editors' efforts. (Ideally, the Biblio section would include sources that have not yet been included into the article, in order to inspire readers to go to that source and add its info.) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When that happens to me, I at least create a stub for the linked reference, as with Record Sheets: 3072. --Scaletail 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)