Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/22nd Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted -MBK004 02:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): User:Historical Perspective (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am hoping this article meets the criteria for A class. Would appreciate and comments, help, suggestions, etc. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No dabs, links look good, and alt text is present. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support regards criteria 1a, 3 & 4
- Check typo in "Henry Wilson when Vice-President of the United States, about ten years after he organized the 22nd Massachusetts." No other typos found, to my happy surprise
- An interesting factoid in the lead could encourage readers to proceed to the text
- Great text, tight, clear, powerful
- Images good, good job. Doug (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Thanks. I changed that photo caption and added two factoids to the lead, one about the terrible casualties they took at Gaines' Mill and another about their specialty as skirmishers. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: looks fine to me, I couldn't find much wrong with it.
- File:William S. Tilton.jpg needs author information, all other images are appropriately licenced, etc.;
- in the Mustering out section, should "reenlist" be "re-enlist"?
- (just a suggestion), but could a stub be created for the 32nd Massachusetts (with whom they were consolidated), so that there is a link to them from this article?
- there is no need for the link in the External links section, as you've already linked it in Notes;
- the article should probably be placed in some more categories to improve traffic to a from. A couple of categories could be: "Military units and formations established in 1861" and "Military units and formations disestablished in 1864" — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Thanks. I did all of the above. The 32nd page is very much a stub right now. But I'll add to it by and by. Always happy for a reason to start another regimental page. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: all my suggestions have been dealt with. Article meets the criteria in my opinion, so I offer my support. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good to me! - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.