Wikipedia:Peer review/The United States Military Code of Conduct/archive1
This is my first attempt at a large-scale revision of a page, and I'd like some peer input to see how well I did. It will help me when I try to tackle future articles. Thanks! Joe McCullough | (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not bad for a first attempt. There are several problems. First off, the article needs to be wikified; the first sentence always has the title of the page boldened (I did that). Links have to be added to the article. The bulleted lists have to be converted into prose, in other words in paragraph form rather than bullets. The first section can be renamed simply ‘Articles’. AndyZ 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comments: It is not clear to me what part is "article" and what is commentary. Specifically, are the bullet items straight quotes, or commentary on that article? There should be some way of indicating what is commentary, and there should probably be more space devoted to explaining an article than to the article itself. The lead section should summarize the article. In the vein, I would be interested in seeing more information on the history and changes hinted at in the lead. Examples of code violations would be useful illustrations. Finally, currenty style guidlines suggest not linking individual years like 1977 and 1988; full dates are OK to wikify. JonHarder 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps italicizing the actual text of the USMCC and then leaving the analysis in roman would do the trick? I like Jon's suggestion about code violations. You might also want to consider uploading the text of the USMCC to Wikisource (assuming it's public domain) and including an outlink to so people can read it as one cohesive document, as well. Good luck! jengod 05:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
...I thought this article was rather thorough, and covered most of the questions that a military member might have. I have only two comments. The first is about "voluntarily surrendering". While not expressly said, it is widely accepted that surrender becomes an option when no significant damage to the enemy's cause can come from further resisting, or when resisting would bring about consequences disproportionate to the gains made by resisting. Thus, if a commander is quite certain that the enemy will take no prisoners (in other words, will kill every soldier) then surrender is not an option. But, if a commander is facing a severe shortage of supplies, and expects no reinforcements or help to arrive, and the enemy commander is allowing a general surrender... then, surrender becomes a viable option. ...The second comment I have is about "escaping". It is the duty of each and every POW to attempt an escape should an escape become feasible. It is also the duty of each and every POW to obey the lawful orders of their commanders. Should these two duties come into conflict, a murky area emerges. It is commonly taught that a commander CANNOT forbid a POW to attempt an escape, should the opportunity become available. But there are times when a successful escape would most likely lead to the torture or deaths of those left behind. This decision must be left to the individual POW. The individual must weigh the likelihood of the escape attempt becoming successful against the probability of consequences to those left behind. ...But with that said, this was a well-made article. --Woodimt (This article happens to be the very first one I've ever tried to peer-review. If I make a mistake, please let me know.)
All, thanks for the reviews. I'll try to see if I can make the changes and ask that you look it over one more time. Joe McCullough | (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)