Talk:1st and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Consolidated)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1st and 4th Missouri Infantry (Consolidated)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this (kinda a continuation of my other review on the regiment), hope you don't mind me taking this on as well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The regiment was formed when the 1st Missouri Infantry and the 4th Missouri Infantry were consolidated on November 7, 1862" It'd make more sense to me to have the date first (i.e. the regiment was formed on November 7, 1862 when the..."
  • Done
• " On April 9, 1865, the regiment surrendered at the Battle of Fort Blakely, and was paroled in May." not sure how to best do it, but I think it may be useful to clarify that the ACW ended there for a reader who may not be immediately familiar?
  • Done
• "suffered heavy losses earlier in the war" They wouldn't have suffered the losses later in the war
  • Removed
• Link colonel in the body upon first mention
  • Done
• "would command the regiment" -> "took command of the regiment" or something similar?
  • Fixed, also corrected two other uses of "would"
• Some explanation of detached duty would be helpful as it's not something I think a reader would be immediately familiar with.
  • Specified exact nature of duty
• "prevent a disaster." perhaps stating what the disaster was would be helpful
  • Done
• "and the Confederates kept storming forward" is storming the word you want here?
  • Changed word choice
• " forcing a retreat that turned into a rout towards the river crossing. " rout is duplinked right after, and if the regiment never routed, how did it turn into one?
  • Removed duplink, and I've worked to the wording to make it clearer that basically everyone but the regiment routed.
• ". Many of the Missourians simply did not report to Demopolis. "
  • Removed
• "Campaign for Atlanta" -> "Atlanta campaign"? " Atlanta Campaign" -> "Atlanta campaign"?
  • Went with Atlanta campaign, I think the MOS likes campaign to be lowercase
• Check for ranks that need to be decaptitalized as they aren't associated with a person (i.e. " now promoted to Brigadier General,") there are several
  • Found and fixed two or three
• "brigade had thrown out skirmishers," perhaps rephrase, something doesn't quite sit right
  • Replaced "thrown out" with deployed. Is that better?

That's it for a first pass, nice work Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: - Ready for the second pass whenever you are. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, File:Battle of Champion Hill.png needs a PD-US tag. Other than that, I see nothing, but will take a third pass after this Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Hog Farm (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, That's it from here. This article is well written, I'm AGF on the offline refs, reasonably comprehensive, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. Happy to pass. Well done! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1st and 4th Missouri Infantry (Consolidated) lost six colorbearers at the Battle of Champion Hill? Source: Reference 7 in the text, Tucker 1993
  • ALT1:... that the 1st and 4th Missouri Infantry (Consolidated) was one of few Confederate units not to rout at the Battle of Big Black River Bridge? Source 8 in text, also Tucker 1993

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Jonathon Pratt

Improved to Good Article status by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC).

• Hi Hog Farm, review follows: article promoted to GA on 2 June and is well written; all sourcing is offline so AGF on close paraphrasing; both hooks are mentioned in the article, I prefer the first hook; a QPQ has been carried out. No issues here - Dumelow (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)