Talk:1st Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I can take this on. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• While not all engagements need years in the lede, some could be useful, particularly the formation date
  • Done
• What's the logic behind having 1st and 4th Missouri Infantry (Consolidated) here and not at it own article (BTW that page should redirect here)?
  • @Eddie891: - Do you think that content should be split into a separate article? I strongly considered that in the expansion of this article, but decided against it (easier to split off later than to split off sooner and merge back). If so, I'll withdraw this nomination, perform the split, address these points, and then renominate. Hog Farm (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

    Hog Farm, I'm not positive about a split, I just think it may pose logistical issues when (presumably) the 4th Missouri Infantry gets an article (i.e. why cover it in the 1st over the 4th page? Personally I'd be more comfortable with a split for that reason, I think there's enough content for both, but if you'd rather keep it, by all means tell me. The best way to decide would be to look at other articles. Is there precedence to combine the consolidated page with another? How about splitting? On the whole, my gut tells me a split would be better... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Eddie891 - I'm going to withdraw this nomination to execute the split. I'm going to be trying to create articles for regimental deadlinks, and the 4th Missouri Infantry will hopefully be one of my projects. I think it's best, especially since most of the sources distinguish between the 1st and the consolidated regiment. I don't know how long it will take me to split it off and then rework the article (reflect split in lead, make the ending cohesive, etc.), so I am withdrawing this nomination until I can get the split executed. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

      • @Eddie891: - UPDATE: I think I've got all of the split stuff done. I don't think it needs to really be withdraw now, they're both in pretty good shape. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• "After being exchanged," what sort of exchange? Prisoner exchange perhaps?
  • Linked
• the regiment was reformed" as the consolidated regiment or the 1st?
  • As the consolidated regiment. I'm really starting to think maybe this should be split
• "were outside of Missouri," -> "were from outside of Missouri"?
  • Corrected
• Don't think you need to say the state after the city after the first mention (i.e. "St. Louis, Missouri" -> "St. Louis"
  • My personally instinct would be to have St. Louis, Missouri to indicate that it is separate from St. Louis County, Missouri. The city is a separate legal mention, added Missouri after the first usage.
• could use size (i.e. how large was a company? What about a regiment?)
  • I'll see what figures I can find
    • Done, it's in the legacy section.
• "In August," -> "In August 1862"
  • Actually "In August 1861"
• "The regiment was finally issued weapons" unless there's a significance to how late it was, which I don't see
  • Removed
• " Bowen was promoted to Brigadier General" ranks should be de-capitalized when not directly in front of a person, this occurs a couple of times.
  • Correcting as I find them
• "and would be in Bowen's brigade along" when?
  • Added the date at the beginning of the sentence
• "Peach Orchard" any relation to The Peach Orchard?
  • Nope. Different battle, different year, different state
• " At Shiloh, the regiment lost 48 men killed, 130 wounded, and 29 missing, for a total of 207 losses" any way to not say loss(es) twice?
  • Simply dropped the second usage
• You could afford to break up the paragraphs somewhat
  • I've broken where I felt logical, if the breaks don't seem logical to you, I can try again.
• "After the Confederates abandoned Corinth," Link? Date?
  • Corinth is linked in the Shiloh section, I'll need to hunt down a date
• " is believed to be incomplete" by who?
  • Attributed
• "Colonel Riley would commanded"
  • Done, and fixed in several similar places
• "leave the field in good order" what does good order here mean?
  • Clarified
• What about the prisoner exchange? Was it common practice? "until the prisoner exchange process was officially completed." we never heard about it being started?
  • Rephrased. Technically, when paroled, they basically promised not to fight until they were exchanged. I've rewritten the clause
• "during the Atlanta Campaign" dates?
  • date added
• Could overall use more illustration
  • I'll add an image of Bowen, relevant as the first colonel. If this gets split, I'll look and see what the new text-image ratio is
• "when he was fell"?
  • Removed the was
• "ordered to Mobil, Alabama" Do you perhaps mean "Mobil"?
  • Should have been Mobile

That's it for a first pass, nice work per usual. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding: I'd still like to see the approximate size of a confederate regiment listed. Darkest Days of War is available online here with free registration, recommend linking. Sourcing from that book seems to line up; AGF on offline books. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I've linked Cozzens to the internet archive as suggested. I'm struggling to find muster strength for the regiment. Some of these records just no longer exist, especially for Confederate units in this theater of war. The closest number I can find to muster strength is 850 at Shiloh. I'll add that. If desired, I can try to dredge through the Official Records again. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, a regiment was 1,000 men, but that didn't happen more often than it actually did, so I'm not sure what value that statistic is. Hog Farm (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Could be worth adding that and simply say 'it was very uncommon that a regiment would be at full strength'. Regardless, this article is now well written, referenced, illustrated, contains no copyvio, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. I'm happy to pass as it stands. Nice work Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)