Talk:2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 19:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this as well (before taking a break from reviewing) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After Harris' Battery and the 3rd Mo. Light Battery, this topic is probably gonna feel really repetitive for you. Hog Farm (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! Well written and interesting, them being the same just makes it easier for me to review...

...with that being said, hopefully you will understand me looking for other topics to review after this one (it's getting a bit hard to keep all the regiments and battles straight in my head). Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

lede looks very dense at a glance, you could probably afford to split it

Split between 1862 and 1863

"The 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)" is (confederate) really needed? suggest removing

Done

" officially joined the Confederate States Army on January 16, 1862" so I get the Missouri State Guard wasn't the same formation, is the unit then accepted to have been " first organized" when it officially joined the army, or before?

I had really bad wording there. Fixed

"but this was changed to 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment, as the 1st Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)" 1) is (confederate) needed in the text and 2) any timeframe for this?

I piped linked the whole thing in 1) to "another regiment" to reduce repetition and no date is given in sources

"Not long after the regiment was organized, the Confederates abandoned Springfield" wanting of a date as the beginning of the paragraph

Source is no more specific than less than a month later, I'll need to look for an exact date elsewhere

"nding the Battle of Pea Ridge." I feel like this could benefit from a clear statement of what the result was?

Added

"although an aggregate return for the regiment reported 150 losses" to an inexperienced reader, I could foresee this being very confusing... I don't think this use of aggregate is commonly used (though may be mistaken)-- can you link or pick a 'simpler' word?

Aggregate is probably the most spot-in word, but I replaced it with overall, which also works

"and later marched to" could you be any more specific?

Not really. Source states that they were ordered to move there, so I added that

"Colonel Burbridge resigned on June 29 and was replaced by Francis M. Cockrell " don't need the former's rank here, but could benefit from the latters

Done

" On September 19, the regiment arrived late" implying but not stating they were supposed to fight in it. Should state it if that's the case

Rephrased

Have you considered adding {{main}} to the individual battle section?

Done

"missing the Battle of Port Gibson on May 1" what's the significance of missing it? Presumably they missed many battles?

Changed to stating that it did not participate. I think it's important to note that it didn't see action there, as most of the rest of the brigade did

" crossing of the Big Black River." add 'in Mississippi"?

Done

Curiously I don't think you link Siege of Vicksburg in its section?

Done

"By the date of the surrender" what surrender?

Used the exact date instead

Some more to come later, nice work per usual. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm: obviously it hasn't been a particularly long time since I commented, but I'm just making sure you notice that I've commented here. No rush in responding Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: - My computer is in the shop, so I won't be able to make particularly complex edits for awhile. Hopefully it gets fixed soon. Hog Farm (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, That's quite fine. Let me know when you're back and I'll check here again. I'm happy to keep this open for as long as it takes. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: The first round is done, although there were a few with no good solution. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I've spot checked several references, everything lines up, assuming good faith on offline sourcing. The article seems to be in good shape, meets the GA criteria. I'm happy to pass. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]