Jump to content

Talk:1st and 4th Missouri Consolidated Infantry Regiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]

@Eddie891: - Ready for the second pass whenever you are. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Hog Farm (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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)[reply]

DYK toolbox

(
)

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

  • 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)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consolidated doesn't look like a real word anymore after parsing this discussion. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Consistency with similar articles, e.g. 11th and 17th Consolidated Arkansas Infantry Regiment. This avoids the weird qualifier when nothing exists at the base name. Not sure whether "consolidated" should be part of the proper name or not, but this at least achieves WP:CONSISTENT for now and avoids violating WP:QUALIFIER. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to be so emphatic, but good catch. I am not sure which word order is best, but for now, move these to be consistent with the Arkansas regiment article. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through sources 1st and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment is perhaps the most common formulation. I don't have access anymore to Tucker or Gottschalk who would be the most immediately relevant sources except for McGhee who uses the terminology "1st and 4th Regiment". Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation, but if consolidation like this happened in the UK we'd use 1st/4th Missouri Infantry Regiment or 2nd/6th Missouri Infantry Regiment. I take it there's no evidence of this useage in the American Civil War? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can find very little usage of the format for the 1st and 4th Missouri. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have 1st Arkansas Consolidated Infantry Regiment (Trans-Mississippi), 2nd Arkansas Consolidated Infantry Regiment, and 3rd Arkansas Consolidated Infantry Regiment. I am not sure what format is best, but we should strive for consistency as best as is reasonable, and it seems clear the "(Consolidated)" format status quo is not the best option of those raised here. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on these findings, we appear to have a 5–3 lead for putting "Consolidated" before the state name. Additionally, the only three titles to use the reverse order are all based in Arkansas specifically. (Given the different titling format (with just a single ordinal number), I'm also not sure how comparable those three Arkansas regiments are to the other articles in the first place, but I'm not sufficiently well versed in this field to weigh in definitively there.) Based on this evidence, I feel that it would be best in keeping with WP:CONSISTENT to adopt the "Xth Consolidated Missouri Infantry Regiment" format for these two titles. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1st_and_4th_Missouri_Consolidated_Infantry_Regiment&oldid=1299177468"