Talk:5th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest implementing all the relevant points from Talk:12th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/GA1 first and removing the company/county breakdown per my other reviews. Also this article needs a hatnote mentioning 5th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Union). Once that is done, I'll take a close look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The company breakdown is present in almost all of the regimental articles of my creation. It'll take me some time to get it culled from all. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you whack a Background section in there and I'll get started on the review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do after work today, I'm gonna be busy in RL this week. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes. My comments:

Lead

drop the (Confederate) from the first sentence
- Done
suggest "secessionist Missouri State Guard"
- Done
can you vary the "lightly engaged"?
- Done
"However, the two regiments missed hitting the Union line on the flank, and instead hit an area with greater support." doesn't follow. Flanks are usually very well supported. Could you reword this
- I've clarified that the Union flank was exposed. (As an amateur historian, I'm not impressed with Grant's execution of Port Gibson)
"important battlefield ~~landmarks~~locations" or "features"
- Done
"the regiment was involved in Union attempts" sounds like they were helping the Union, reword?
- Done
"Confederate defensive works"
- Done
"5th Missouri Infantry were paroled." and "3rd Missouri Infantry" this is always necessary, esp if there was a cavalry unit or battery from the same state with the same numbering
- Done
Siege of Vicksburg is duplinked
- Fixed. Second one should have been Siege of Atlanta

Body

add {{main|Missouri in the American Civil War}} to the top of the Background and formation section. I would adopt this as standard for ACW unit article Background sections, as I think they all have a "Fooian in the American Civil War" article
- Done
"Price himself ~~would~~ entered Confederate service"
- Done
"a commission as a major general" don't use caps unless preceding the name
- Fixed
suggest "5th Missouri Infantry Regiment, despite the 6th Missouri Infantry Regiment having been formed first."
- Done
4:45 in the afternoon→16:45 (if using 4 hour clock), or 4:45 pm, per MOS:TIME
- Done
"but ~~Major General Sterling~~ Price"
- Done
5th Missouri→5th Missouri Infantry
- Will fix these section-by-section
I'd do 0.25 miles in yards and metres, not miles and kms
- Okay. Done.
"The regiment lost 87 men at Corinth."
- Done. I also combined it with the previous sentence to improve the flow and made it clearer that it's total casualties, not just killed
"On April 30, Union infantry commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant" surely this was the Army of the Tennessee and contained infantry, artillery and cavalry?
- Is the new phrasing better?
"the 3rd, 5th and 6th Missouri Infantry Regiments"
- Done
"at about 12:30 in the afternoon"→"at about 12:30" (if using 24-hour clock), or "at about 12:30 pm"
- Done
"3rd Missouri Infantry fought"
- Done
"5th Missouri Infantry took on Slack's. The regiment had been"
- I know I'm putting the 5th Missouri Infantry in close proximity here, but I feel like it's important to specify more than just "the regiment", given that two regiments are mentioned in the previous sentence. If you feel strongly that it should be "the regiment", I'm willing to make the change
"the regiment's attack caused two of Slack's regiments to break and run" if that is correct? or ""the regiment's attack broke through the line of two of Slack's regiments"
- Went with the latter
"the regiment attacked the 29th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment"
- Done
"29th Wisconsin Infantry" there is another example
- Fixed
"Some of the men of the 5th Missouri Infantry" there are more examples
- Done
"the 3rd Missouri Infantry suffered 24 casualties"
- Done
how did a "second Company H" work? Guaranteed to cause all sorts of confusion...
- McGhee and Tucker mention the new company, but don't explain. I've seen references to Company H (2nd) but I'm not sure if that was the official name
suggest "The rest of Cockrell's First Missouri Brigade"
- Done
"56th and 57th Georgia Infantry Regiments"
- Done
"1st and 4th Missouri Infantry (Consolidated)" there are other examples
- Done
"~~Cockrell's brigade~~It was on the Confederate right"
- Done
"4th Mississippi Infantry"
- Done
.[61]}
- Done
"After the defeat at Big Black River Bridge" link Battle of Big Black River Bridge
- Done
"including elements of the Union 6th and 8th Missouri Infantry Regiments"
- Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"that men of ~~both~~opposite sides could talk to each other."
- Done
link Tunnel warfare for "a tunnel"
- Done
"Ketchum Ggrenades"
- Done
"and ~~an even larger~~more extensive use"
- Done
"the fighting toaround the crater had ended"
- Done
on what date did the regiment cease to exist?
- I tried to make this clearer. Is this clearer
"before abandoning the ~~place~~city in September"
- Done
any idea how many of the remaining men of the 3rd and 5th Missouri Infantry who were originally from this regiment served to the end of the war?
- Unfortunately not. I might be able to find a total final strength, though.
Kennedy 1998 doesn't appear in the Sources
- Headbomb fixed this, probably while working on the broken references category.
what is the original source for File:Missouri regiments army banner.png? Was it actually carried by this regiment?
- Added mention of use by regiment. The original source is an own work file, which does seem to be own work. It should be fine, I think
the licensing on File:Col. James McCown.jpg doesn't work. It seems unlikely that a NPS employee took the photo, and it doesn't say when/where it was published for the PD-US tag. However, as it was on a visiting card, it can be considered published the first time he gave to someone, and at the very latest by the time of McCown's death in 1867. That means the PD-US tag can be used. Provide that info in the description and drop the PD-USGov-NPS tag and this one can stay
- Done
File:Francis M. Cockrell.jpg has virtually no information, and can't be used unless publication or author information can be provided
- I've replaced the Cockrell image with a Jespersen map of the campaign. I recently learned that Jespersen is a professional ACW cartographer whose maps have appeared in reliably published works so I think it's acceptable
a number of terms are duplinked: Union, rout and infantry. Consider adding the script at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to your common.js page and you will then have a link on the left margin that you can click to check for duplinks

OK, I'm done. Nice work so far. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for taking this one on. I was worried the length would scare off reviewers. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you done, Hog Farm? If so, it can be a good idea to ping the reviewer when you are finished addressing their comments, particularly if they are a prolific reviewer like me, I lose track sometimes... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Peacemaker67: I wasn't quite done then, but I'm done now. I was waiting to get home from work and see if I could find a final strength of the 3/5 Consolidated, but I couldn't. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by acceptably licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Peacemaker67: - What do you think about this article's reliance on the two Tucker books? Is it too much? I tried to balance the sources as much as possible, but Tucker's two books give by far the most detail on the regiment. This one might eventually be an ACR candidate after some further work, so I'm wondering if I need to try to find a way to reduce the usage of Tucker. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Tucker strikes me as popular history, and the titles are just a little fanboi to be taken really seriously. It depends on the information being cited to him. Routine stuff like regimental movements and positions in a battle are fine, but anything that could be considered an opinion is going to be scrutinised. I think you might need to hunt around to see if there are any sources that could replace any of the opinion-type stuff or stuff that excuses poor performance, and probably trim a bit of unnecessary detail cited to him. Just a random example, "By early June, the Confederate defenders of Vicksburg were running low on percussion caps, hindering their ability to fire at their besiegers." must be able to be cited to an academic text on Vicksburg, it is one of the most studied battles of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]