Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another Missouri Confederate unit, although a shorter article this time. The 4th Mo. Infantry only saw action in one serious battle before being consolidated with the 1st Mo. Infantry to form a new unit, so there's not a whole lot to say here. The regiment's flag is preserved in the Museum of the Confederacy. Hog Farm Bacon 00:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • The lead should be expanded a little bit. For instead the "Legacy" section could give us more info in the lead.
    • Done
  • nengaged at the May 9 Battle of Farmington and the September 19 Battle of Iuka Add commas after the dates since the majority of the dates use a comma.
    • I think I've adjusted all of these
  • the state of Missouri was politically divided Divided by whom? By the Governor and?
    • I've taken a crack at explaining this, is it better? The general population as a whole was badly split
  • Brigadier General Benjamin McCulloch; in the ensuing Battle of Wilson's Creek Where? It wouldn't surprise people wouldn't know where this battle was fought. I mean some names of the ACW aren't named after the location the battle took place.
  • In the Battle of Pea Ridge, fought on March 7 and 8, 1862 This is exactly what I mean. We don't know where this took place and after clicking it you wouldn't see the location was named after Pea Rigde.
    • I've specified that Pea Ridge was in northwestern Arkansas. Is that enough? I can get more specific, but the exact location isn't likely to be meaningful to someone not from that specific area.
  • muster performed on May 5 counted 547 men in the regiment No comma after the date.
    • I've added it, although it does feel odd to me. Commas ain't my strong suit
  • On May 9, the 4th Missouri Infantry was near the action at the Battle of Farmington, but did not see combat Because?
    • @CPA-5: - It's gonna be a couple weeks potentially before I can figure this out. I'm a university student, and I left McGhee at home, so I don't have ready access to it. I can't preview the needed page on Google or Amazon, I can't access it through my university, and there's no library close to where I am that carries it. I'll have to wait until I get
      • @CPA-5: - Well, I was able to get ahold of a copy of McGhee for about 5 minutes, and he doesn't explain why. I've been unable to find another source that directly addresses this, either. Hog Farm Bacon 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by Brigadier General Thomas A. Davies' division --> "by Brigadier General Thomas A. Davies's division"
    • Done
  • brigade made another charge against Davies' line Same as above.
    • Done
  • supported by elements of Colonel Elijah Gates' brigade Same as above.
    • Done
  • On October 3, the 4th Missouri and the rest of Green's brigade --> "The following morning, the 4th Missouri and the rest of Green's brigade" since we know the event in the sentence before this was on the 2nd.
    • Actually just removed the timing event, as At 10:00 on October 3, Van Dorn attacked, beginning the Second Battle of Corinth two sentences above should place these events on the 3rd.
  • defended by men of Davies' division extra "s".
    • Done
  • After breaking through Davies' line Same as above.
    • Done
  • ecame colonel of the unit unit and Riley lieutenant Two "unit"s?
    • Removed, a copy editing oversight.
  • The flag of the 4th Missouri Infantry, a Van Dorn battle flag, is displayed at the Museum of the Confederacy When?
    • Still held. Tracked down a source and added
  • Could you maybe give some more explanation about Lieutenant Colonel Waldo P. Johnson in his image? Like a date or so?
    • I've actually removed that image. It's lacking the publishing date, so I'm not sure that I could prove it was PD.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, are you able to venture an opinion on this, or is there more to come? Cheers
CPA-5 - Anything further on this? Hog Farm Bacon 05:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog Farm Could you please split the lead into two paragraphs, there's also a DD/MM/YYYY in the infobox, the link of American Civil War Museum is broken and I see some ISBNs use 10 and others use 13-degit numbers maybe standerdise them? The rest looks good enough. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CPA-5 - Thanks! I've used an ISBN converter online to get the 10s to 13s, so hopefully that thing is right. I've swapped everything over to MM/DD/YYYY, split the lead into two paragraphs where I thought it was most logical, and I've gotten an archive link from the Wayback Machine for the broken web link. Hog Farm Bacon 03:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review + source review—pass edit

  • File:Iuka-Corinth Campaign2.png should have verifiable source for the information depicted
    • The creator of the map, Hlj, is Hal Jespersen, who is a professional cartographer whose works have been published in several RS about the war. See [1], [2], [3]. I think given that Jespersen has some pretty decent credentials, it ought to be okay. However, if its not, then I'll just have to remove the map entirely. All of the ones on Commons for Second Corinth are Jespersen maps, which all have the same lack of a specific source; I don't personally have the skill to produce a map, either. Hog Farm Bacon 02:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's accurate, but isn't there some (other) source you could list that discusses the troop movements depicted on the map, not necessarily enough detail to duplicate it but gives the general idea? It's better to document these things if possible. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buidhe - I can cite the Cozzens book cited in the article, which discusses those troop movements. However, it would take me a rather long time to sort out which of the 300-odd pages are the exact ones I need. Would giving the whole book be acceptable, or do I need to basically re-read it? Hog Farm Bacon 15:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fine by me. (t · c) buidhe 21:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, images are OK (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Buidhe. There is an image of the, flat, actual flag of the unit here. IMO it would be better than the current "in the style of" flag image. Do you know if there is precedent as to whether flags laid flat count as 2D? If there isn't, do you have an opinion? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the flag itself is probably fine, but the tassels seem to have a 3-D element. (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass sources seem to meet minimum standard for RS. The one web source was checked and verifies the information cited. (t · c) buidhe 01:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • "the regiment participated in three charges against exterior Union lines". Do we really need "exterior" in the lead?
    • Nope, removed
  • "attacking the inner Union lines." Likewise "inner". I think that you need to give more detail or a little less.
    • Replaced with "new", so it doesn't sound like the same ground was fought over on both days.
  • "After being exchanged, the men rejoined the Confederate Army and served in ..." Yes, but what happened to the unit? (And in the main article.)
    • Added in both spots
  • Flag image: is no image of the unit's actual flag available, if it is displayed in a museum?
    • I could get one off the internet, there's an unwatermarked one at [4], [5] is better, but it's watermarked. Would it be free to use, though? I'm not great with licensing
  • "Two previously-existing battalions". Optional: → 'Two already-existing battalions'.
    • I personally prefer the existing phrasing, because it fits better with my writing style, but I would be willing to change it
That's OK. If I label something as optional it is a suggestion only.
  • "A muster performed on May 5" Maybe "performed" → 'carried out'?
    • Done
  • Link muster.
    • Done
  • "At this time, Price was in command of the Army of the West, which he had stationed at Iuka, Mississippi; Van Dorn had troops further to the south. At the time" A bit of variation in the start of one, or both, of these sentences?
    • Done
  • "as a result of losses in both units." → 'due to losses in both units'.
    • Done
  • "is held by the Museum of the Confederacy". Maybe add 'in Richmond'?
    • Done

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Gog the Mild - I've replied to all above, although the flag response is a licensing query. Thanks for reviewing this, these Missouri units are all so similar they must be a pain to review more than one of. Hog Farm Bacon 16:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to support this, and query the status of images of flags. Good work. Again. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Just grabbing a pew as third reviewer. Will start shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • semi-colon rather than comma after "1st and 4th Missouri Infantry (Consolidated)"
    • Done
Body
  • main template for Missouri in the ACW at the top of Background and organization
    • Done
  • comma after "March 7 and 8, 1862"
    • Added
  • "Eventually, many of the men of the MSG would joined Confederate Army units"
    • Done
  • main template for Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War at the top of the Service history section
    • I'm not convinced this would be useful. The unit never served west of the Mississippi River, so it was never in the Trans-Mississippi proper. If we had Iuka-Corinth campaign, that would be a good main template link, but there's no overall article about that campaign.
  • comma after "Corinth, Mississippi"
    • Added. I'm a bad copy editor, especially of my own work
  • "1st and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Consolidated)" this also applies to the lead
    • Fixed. A relic from when I didn't know naming conventions.
  • "from the 4th Missouri Infantry"
    • Done

That is all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 15 December 2020 (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=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/4th_Missouri_Infantry_Regiment_(Confederate)&oldid=994387526"